Portland State University

PDXScholar
Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses

Spring 6-1-2015

Experimental Investigation of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams

Karrar Ali Al-lami
Portland State University

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Part of the Structural Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Al-lami, Karrar Ali, "Experimental Investigation of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams" (2015). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2296.

10.15760/etd.2293

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of
PDXScholar. For more information, please contact pdxscholar@pdx.edu.
Experimental Investigation of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams

by

Karrar Ali Al-lami

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for degree of

Master of Science
in
Civil and Environmental Engineering

Thesis Committee:
Franz Rad, Chair
Peter Dusicka
Evan Kristof

Portland State University

2015
 Abstract
Shear strength of fiber reinforced concrete beams was studied in this research project.

Three types of fibers were examined: hooked-end steel fiber, crimped-steel fiber, and

crimped-monofilament polypropylene fibers. The experimental program included five

beam specimens. Two of the beams were control specimens in which one was reinforced

with minimum shear reinforcement according to ACI 318, while the other one did not

have any shear reinforcement. Each one of the other three specimens was reinforced with

one of the above mentioned fibers by 1% volumetric ratio. In addition to the beam

specimens, three prisms were also made for each type fiber to determine their toughness.

The aim of this research was to investigate the following questions for medium-high

concrete strength 1) to evaluate the effectiveness of each type of fibers on the shear

strength, 2) to investigate the shear strength, toughness, crack patterns and near ultimate

load crack width of each beam, and 3) to determine if using 1% volumetric ratio of fibers

as shear reinforcement in beams would provide adequate strength and stiffness properties

comparable to reinforcing steel used as minimum shear reinforcement.

The results showed that all three types of fibers increased the shear capacity of the beam

specimens more than the beam reinforced with minimum shear reinforcement. Moreover,

some of the fibers used could shift the type of failure from a pure shear failure to a

combined flexural-shear or pure flexural failure.

i
 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was submitted by the author to Portland State University in partial

fulfillment the requirements of Masters of Science in Civil Engineering. First, the author

wants to thank God for blessing him while he finished this research. The author would

like to acknowledge the support provided by High Committee of Education Development

in Iraq (HCED), which granted and funded the author’s education and research.

The author would like also to show his gratitude for Professor Franz Rad, for his

guidance, feedback, and valuable notes. The author would like to extend his appreciation

to the other members of his graduate committee, Professors Peter Dusicka and Evan

Kristof, for their review of the thesis and their helpful suggestions.

The author also would like to show his sincere gratitude to his friends and Mr. Tom

Bennett who helped with the experimental part of this research. Finally, the author wants

to thank his family for all the support and advice that they gave him during his graduate

studies and research.

ii
 Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………i

Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………..……….ii

List of Tables………………………………………………………………….…….…vii

List of Figures…………………………………….……………………….………….viii

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................1

1.1. Historical Background and Development of Fibers ..............................................1

1.2. Potential Uses of Fiber Reinforced Concrete FRC ...............................................3

1.3. Motivation for the Research ..................................................................................4

1.4. Objective and Scope of the Research ....................................................................4

Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................6

2.1. Mechanical Properties of SFRC ............................................................................6

2.1.1. Bond Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete ......................................6

2.1.2. Tensile Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) .....................10

2.1.3. Flexural Strength and Flexural Toughness of SFRC ...................................15

2.1.4. Compressive strength of SFRC ....................................................................17

2.2. Mechanical Properties of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete PPFRC ....18

2.2.1. Tensile-Flexural and Compression Strength of PPFRC ..............................18

2.2.2. Flexural Strength and Flexural Toughness of PPFRC .................................19

2.2.3. Cracking and Shrinkage of PPFRC..............................................................20

iii
 2.2.4. Shear Strength of PPFRC.............................................................................21

2.3. Shear Failure Mechanism of FRC .......................................................................22

2.3.1. Failure of Plain Concrete Beams .................................................................22

2.3.2. Failure of Longitudinally Reinforced Beams without Diagonal Tension

Reinforcement ............................................................................................................23

2.3.3. Modes of Failure of Beams Without Diagonal Tension Reinforcements ....24

2.3.4. Web Steel Reinforcement in Beams ............................................................27

2.3.5. Failure of SFRC Beams without Stirrups Reinforcement............................28

2.4. Prediction Shear Strength of SFRC .....................................................................29

Chapter 3: Experimental Program..............................................................................33

3.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................33

3.2. Beam Specimens .................................................................................................34

3.3. Fixed Parameters .................................................................................................36

3.3.1. Shear Span-to-Effective Depth Ratio...........................................................36

3.3.2. Beam Size ....................................................................................................36

3.3.3. Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement for the Control Beam ............38

3.3.4. Fiber Volume Fraction .................................................................................41

3.3.5. Concrete Compressive Strength ...................................................................42

3.4. Varied Parameters ...............................................................................................43

iv
 3.4.1. Fiber Types ..................................................................................................43

3.5. Fabrication of Reinforcement Cages and Formwork ..........................................44

3.6. Proportioning, Mixing and Curing of FRC .........................................................46

3.7. Instrumentation and Testing ................................................................................47

3.7.1. Steel Tensile Test .........................................................................................47

3.7.2. Flexural Reinforcement ...............................................................................48

3.7.3. Concrete Compressive Test .........................................................................49

3.7.4. Splitting Tensile Strength ............................................................................50

3.8. Beam Test Setup..................................................................................................51

3.9. Material Testing and Properties ..........................................................................52

3.9.1. Shear Reinforcement ....................................................................................52

Chapter 4: Result of the Experimental Program ........................................................53

4.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................53

4.2. Mechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete .........................................53

4.2.1. Compressive Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete ..................................53

4.2.2. Splitting Tensile Strength ............................................................................58

4.2.3. Flexural Strength ..........................................................................................62

4.2.4. Flexural Toughness ......................................................................................68

4.3. Beams’ Behavior and Discussion ........................................................................74

v
 4.3.1. Beam Without Any Shear Reinforcement (B5-NS).....................................74

4.3.2. Beam Reinforced with Minimum Shear Steel Reinforcement (B1-MS) .....77

4.3.3. Beam Reinforced with Hooked-End Steel Fiber (B2-HS) ...........................81

4.3.1. Beam Reinforced with Crimped-Steel Fiber (B3-CS) .................................84

4.3.2. Beam Reinforced with Monofilament-Crimped Polypropylene Fiber (B4-

CPP) 87

4.4. Summary of the Beams Tests ..............................................................................90

4.4.1. Ultimate Shear Stress and Normalize Shear Stress......................................90

4.4.2. Crack Width, Pattern and Failure Mode ......................................................93

4.4.3. Prediction of Shear Strength Based on Previous Research. .........................94

4.4.4. Replacement of Minimum Shear Reinforcement ........................................95

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research .....97

5.1. Summary .............................................................................................................97

5.2. Conclusions .........................................................................................................98

5.3. Recommendations for Further Research .............................................................99

References ........................................................................................................................100

vi
 List of Tables
Table 2-1 Pullout test pertinent to hooked steel fibers and deformed fibers .......................7

Table 2-2 Test results for hooked and cimped steel fibers embedded in a concrete matrix 8

Table 3-1 Design properties of the beam specimens .........................................................35

Table 3-2 Beam Dimension ...............................................................................................37

Table 3-3 Calculation for flexural and shear strength .......................................................39

Table 3-4 Mix proportion for each type of fiber ................................................................42

Table 3-5 Type and Characteristics of the used fibers .......................................................43

Table 3-6 Proportion of mixed fibers.................................................................................46

Table 3-7 Diagonal shear reinforcement properties...........................................................52

Table 4-1 Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity ...............................................54

Table 4-2 Splitting tensile strength ....................................................................................61

Table 4-3 Prism Test information ......................................................................................63

Table 4-4 Flexural test results ............................................................................................66

Table 4-5 Flexural toughness index of fiber reinforced concrete ......................................71

Table 4-6 Normalized ultimate shear stress in term of f'c .................................................91

Table 4-7 Normalized shear strength of the beams to the one with min shear

reinforcement .....................................................................................................................92

Table 4-8 Prediction shear strength of SFC .......................................................................94

vii
 List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Type of fibers; (a) Steel fibers; (b) polypropylene fibers reinforced concrete ..2

Figure 2-1 Effect of compressive strength on pullout (from Naaman and Najim, 1991) ....7

Figure 2-2 Effect of fiber inclination for hooked steel fiber in Concrete ............................9

Figure 2-3 Direct tensile stress-strain curves for different type of SFRC .........................12

Figure 2-4 Tensile stress-crack opening relationship for different SFRC mixes...............12

Figure 2-5 Dinh Direct tensile strength; (a) dog-bone specimen; (b) result ......................13

Figure 2-6 Important characteristics of the load-deflection curve (ASTM C 1018) .........15

Figure 2-7 Effect of hooked and straight steel fibers on flexural performance of

concrete. .............................................................................................................................16

Figure 2-8 Effect of the volume of fibers on the compressive stress-strain curve ............17

Figure 2-9 The effect of Fiber content on the modules of rapture (From ACI 544)..........19

Figure 2-10 Average Cracks width Versus Fiber content (From ACI 544) ......................21

Figure 2-11 Plain concrete beam subjected to concentrated load ......................................23

Figure 2-12 Crack pattern and principal stresses in longitudinally reinforced concrete

beam ...................................................................................................................................24

Figure 2-13 Failure modes (a) Flexural failure; (b) Diagonal tension (c) Shear

compression .......................................................................................................................26

Figure 2-14 Shear resistant component (From Dinh,, 2009) .............................................27

Figure 3-1 Load, Dimension and cross section for the tested beams.................................37

Figure 3-2 Reinforcement details and beams dimension ...................................................40

Figure 3-3 Fibers used in the experimental program .........................................................44

Figure 3-4 Steel fabrication and form work .......................................................................45

viii
Figure 3-5 Direct tensile testing machine “Instorn” ..........................................................47

Figure 3-6 Test Setup .........................................................................................................48

Figure 3-7 Stress-strain curve for longitudinal reinforcement ...........................................48

Figure 3-8 Concrete compressive machine ........................................................................49

Figure 3-9 Beam test setup ................................................................................................51

Figure 3-10 Stress-Strain relationship for diagonal shear reinforcement wire ..................52

Figure 4-1 Stress-Strain curves ..........................................................................................56

Figure 4-2 Cylinders failure pattern ...................................................................................57

Figure 4-3 Tensile stress Vs Strain for splitting test ..........................................................59

Figure 4-4 Splitting test .....................................................................................................61

Figure 4-5 Flexural test setup ............................................................................................62

Figure 4-6 Flexural Stress Versus Deflection at midspan ................................................65

Figure 4-7 Flexural toughness of concrete prism ..............................................................70

Figure 4-8 Comparison of the average flexural toughness index for the three used fiber. 72

Figure 4-9 Failure stages of plain concrete ........................................................................72

Figure 4-10 Areas used to determine flexural toughness index .........................................73

Figure 4-11 Experimental load versus deflection ..............................................................74

Figure 4-12 Cracks pattern and beam failure .....................................................................76

Figure 4-13 Load versus deflection for minimum shear reinforcement beam ...................77

Figure 4-14 Cracks propagation for minimum shear reinforcement specimen .................80

Figure 4-15 Load Vs deflection for hooked end steel fiber ...............................................81

Figure 4-16 Cracks propagation and failure pattern for hooked end steel fiber ................83

ix
Figure 4-17 Load vs deflection for crimped steel fiber ....................................................84

Figure 4-18 Cracks propagation and failure pattern for crimped steel fiber ......................86

Figure 4-19 Load vs deflection for crimped monofilament polypropylene fiber ..............87

Figure 4-20 Cracks propagation and failure pattern for crimped polypropylene fiber ......89

Figure 4-21 Shear forces in the tested beams ....................................................................90

Figure 4-22 comparison load versus deflection for the tested beam specimens. ...............95

Figure 4-23 Normalized Shear strength .............................................................................96

x
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Historical Background and Development of Fibers

Historically, much effort has been spent improving the behavior of concrete structures.

Flexural, compressive, shear strength, ductility, and other properties have been the focus

of many researchers who have tested concretes with added steel and other materials to

improve the behavior of concrete. The concept of adding fibers to improve brittle

material behavior is ancient. For example, Mesopotamians used straw to reinforce

sunbaked bricks. This ancient technology is still used to improve concrete characteristics.

Nowadays, fibers are produced from different materials such as steel, glass, carbon, and

synthetic material. Each one of these fibers has it specific benefits. However, steel fiber is

the most common one. It has been reported [1] that the first experimental trial to improve

concrete characteristics using discontinues steel reinforcing elements, such as nails

segments, was done in 1910. However, it was not until 1963 [1] when major experiments

were done to improve concrete characteristics using a real steel fibers. A typical length of

steel fibers ranges from 0.25 to 2.5 in ( 6 to 64 mm), and its diameter ranges from 0.02 to

0.04 in (0.5 to 1.0 mm). Steel fibers are produced in different forms as shown in figure1-

1. This type of fiber is available commercially in tensile strength up to 300 ksi (2068

MPa).

In order to overcome problems with steel fibers such rusting, researchers have studied

other types of fibers. Synthetic fibers (polypropylene and nylon) are some of these fibers.

Polypropylene fibers were used for the first time in 1965 in the construction of blast

1
 resisting building for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Earlier

studies [1] showed that these fibers were not successful like steel and glass. However, a

better understanding of fiber behavior, new types of fibers, and other factors led to

successful synthetic fiber.

(a)

Monofilament Fibrillated fiber

(b)

Figure 1-1 Type of fibers; (a) Steel fibers; (b) polypropylene fibers reinforced concrete

2
 1.2. Potential Uses of Fiber Reinforced Concrete FRC

Steel fiber is used to improve the mechanical properties of concrete, especially the post-

cracking tensile resistant. Moreover, it has recently been used as an alternative

engineering material instead of steel bars/steel stirrups in short-span concrete slabs. Steel

fibers reinforced concrete (SFRC) construction is more economical than conventional

construction. In addition to cost reduction, SFRC has other beneficial properties such as

higher stiffness, higher ductility, lightweight, low repair costs, and better post-cracking

and dynamic behavior.

SFRC has been used extensively in construction of industrial floors, bridge deck

overlays, airport runways, highway pavements, tunnel linings, spillways, dams, slope

stabilizations, and many precast products. An example of recent use of steel fiber is the

Gotthard Base Tunnel. Nevertheless, relatively little use of SFRC in the building

structure is mainly due to the lack of design provisions in building codes.

Steel fibers can improve the characteristics of hardened concrete, and polypropylene

fibers can have a significant effects on the fresh concrete. Polypropylene fibers

significantly reduce the slump of the fresh concrete resulting in an increase in the

adhesion and cohesion of the concrete. Polypropylene fibers also reduce the plastic

shrinkage cracks. Polypropylene fibers can increase concrete durability against fire,

freezing, and chemical attacks. Due to its benefits, polypropylene fiber reinforced

concrete (PPFRC) is used in pile foundations, piers, highways, industrial floors, bridge

decking and others.

3
 1.3. Motivation for the Research

The guidelines that deal with SFRC is “Design Consideration for Steel Fiber Reinforced

Concrete” (ACI Committee 544, 2009). It contains test results and equations to predict

shear strength. This provision does not have any design equations for two possible

reasons. First, the most available research has been done with older types of fibers such

as chopped-straight wire. These types of fibers do not enhance concrete characteristics as

much as modern fibers. Second, the working mechanisms of steel fibers in RC beams to

enhance flexure, shear and other characteristics are not fully understood.

These reasons were the motivation to study STFRC in this research project.

1.4. Objective and Scope of the Research

The objective of this research was to investigate the following aspects of fiber reinforced

beams made of medium-high concrete capacity. 1) to evaluate the effectiveness of each

type of fibers (hooked-end steel fibers, crimped-steel fibers and polypropylene fibers) on

the shear strength of beams, 2) to investigate the shear strength, toughness, crack patterns

and near ultimate load crack width of each beam, and 3) to determine if using 1%

volumetric ratio of fibers as shear reinforcement in beams would provide adequate

strength and stiffness properties comparable to reinforcing steel used as minimum shear

reinforcement.

The experimental program included five beam specimens. Two beams were control

specimens, one was reinforced with minimum shear reinforcement using reinforcing steel

4
according to ACI 318, while the other one had no shear reinforcement. Each one of the

other three specimens was reinforced with one type of fibers (hooked-end steel fibers,

crimped-steel fibers and polypropylene fibers) by 1% volumetric ratio. In addition to the

beam specimens, three prisms were made using each type of fiber to determine their

toughness. This research is limited to testing approximately one-third scale simply

supported beams. In this research test specimens were approximately one-third scale

simply supported beams, suitable for laboratory experiments.

Each specimen is reinforced with 1% volumetric ratio of fiber. These fibers are hooked-

end steel fibers, crimped-steel fibers and polypropylene fibers. The main objectives of

this research were: 1) to investigate the possibility of using 1% volumetric ratio of fibers

to replace minimum shear reinforcement required by ACI 318; 2) to study the behavior of

fiber reinforced concrete beams without reinforcing steel shear reinforcement; 3) and to

evaluate the effectiveness of each type of fibers.

5
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1. Mechanical Properties of SFRC

2.1.1. Bond Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete

As it mentioned before, the utilization of fibers to enhance the characteristics of brittle

material is very old. In the early 1960s [1], steel fiber was introduced as a new a version

of fiber. Straight fiber was the first type of that fiber. The bond of that fiber depended on

the friction between the concrete and fiber. Consequently, a rectangular section with

higher aspect ratio was more efficient.

The role of steel fiber is to inhabit the propagation of micro-cracks. There are two

possible scenarios of failure of fibers. The first is the fracture of fiber and the second s the

pull-out of fibers from the concrete. The second scenario is more preferable because it is

more ductile, and acts as an energy absorber. In other words in order for the fiber to be

pulled out, hooked-end fiber and crimped-fiber should bend significantly and yield.

Consequently, this process will absorb a great amount of energy. One of the factors that

affect the failure type is the bond between steel fiber and concrete.

A relationship was derived [2] to determine critical fiber length, after which fiber

undergoes fracture instead of pullout, when a crack intersects the fiber at midpoint.

𝑑𝑓
𝑙𝑐 = 𝜎
2𝑣𝑏 𝑓

Where df , vb,and σf , are respectively fiber diameter, interfacial bond strength, and fiber
strength.

6
Studies [3] have shown that an increase in the compressive strength of concrete could

increase the bond between steel fiber concrete itself as shown in table 2.1. Furthermore,

hooked-end steel fibers and deformed steel fibers required a load that was four times the

load required to pullout smooth fiber figure 2-1. However, volume fraction of steel fibers

did not have that significant effect for less than 3% content. The content increased peak

pullout load by 10 % and slightly affected the post-peak load resistance.

Table 2-1 Pullout test pertinent to hooked steel fibers and deformed fibers embedment in cement based
matrix (from Naaman and Najam, 1991)

Diameter Embedment Fiber type Matrix Ppeak ∆peak

(in.) length strength (lb) (in.)

(in.) (psi)

0.0295 1 Hooked 8650 102.8 0.029

(0.75 mm) (25.4 mm) Hooked 7400 80.3 0.035

Hooked 4850 58.9 0.031
Deformed 7400 35.4 0.051
Deformed 4850 21.6 0.067

Figure 2-1 Effect of compressive strength on pullout (from Naaman and Najim, 1991)

7
Other researchers [4] studied bond behavior of hooked, crimped, and standard steel fibers

that had fibers that were inclined toward a degree that ranged from (0-90) with respect to

the load direction. The conclusion was that increasing concrete compressive strength

would enhance the bond between fibers and concrete as shown in table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Test results for hooked and cimped steel fibers embedded in a concrete matrix (from Banthia and
Trottier, 1994)

Fiber Type Diameter Matrix Ppeak ∆average

strength

Hooked end 0.0315 in 5802 psi 61 lb 0.06 in

(0.8 mm) (40 MPa) (272.9 N) (1.55 mm)

7542 psi 65 lb 0.039 in

(52 MPa) (287.2 N) (0.98 mm

12382 psi 67 lb 0.047 in

(85 MPa) (296.5 N) (1.19 mm)

Crimped 0.039 in 5802 psi 152 lb 0.100 in

(1.0 mm) (40 MPa) (676.5 N) (2.56 mm)

7542 psi 153 lb 0.096 in

(52 MPa (680.0 N) (2.44 mm)

12382 psi 151 lb 0.082 in

(85 MPa) (670.9 N) (2.09 mm)

8
Figure 2-2 Effect of fiber inclination for hooked steel fiber in Concrete (from Banthia and Trottier, 1994)

9
 2.1.2. Tensile Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC)

Concrete is a brittle material with very low tensile strength in comparison with its

compressive strength. It is estimated that its tensile strength about 10% of its compressive

strength. The tensile failure of plain concrete starts with cracks. Consequently, one of

these cracks will extend along the member leading to its structural failure. However in

fiber reinforced concrete, tensile failure can be divided into two stages. The first stage is

up to the first crack. Previous studies [5], [6] provided equations to determine the tensile

strength, σc and stiffness Ec of the composite at this stage.

𝜎𝑐 = 𝜎𝑓 𝑉𝑓 + 𝜎𝑚𝑢 (1 − 𝑉𝑓 )

𝐸𝑐 = 𝐸𝑓 𝑉𝑓 + 𝐸𝑚 ( 1 − 𝑉𝑓 )

Where σmu, Em, Ef, and Vf, are, respectively, the matrix tensile strength at first-crack, the

matrix modulus, the fiber modulus, and the fiber volume fraction. These equations show

that composite strength and stiffness are the function volumetric ratio of steel fibers.

Since this ratio is so small, less than 2% in most cases, first-crack strength and stiffness

of the composite are almost equal to the plain concrete. In order to account for fiber

alignment in two or three dimensions, two factors were introduced to the previous

equations. First one is fiber length factor, η1. Second one is fiber orientation factor, η2.

𝜎𝑐 = 𝜂1 𝜂2 𝜎𝑓 𝑉𝑓 + 𝜎𝑚𝑢 (1 − 𝑉𝑓 )

𝐸𝑐 = 𝜂1 𝜂2 𝐸𝑓 𝑉𝑓 + 𝐸𝑚 ( 1 − 𝑉𝑓 )

The second stage of tension cracks is post-cracking. In this stage, fibers bridge the cracks.

They debond and pull out before fiber fracture occurs. Therefore, fibers play a significant

10
role in this stage. The post-cracking strength depends on the bond between fibers and

concrete, fibers orientation, and number of fibers that across the crack. Naaman and

Reinhardt [7] provided an equation to determine post-cracking strength

𝑉𝑓 𝐿𝑓
𝜎𝑝𝑐 = (𝜆1 𝐿𝑓 . 𝜋𝐷𝑓 . 𝜆2 𝜏). [𝜆3 2 ] = 𝜆1 𝜆2 𝜆3 𝜏𝑉𝑓 𝐷
𝜋𝐷𝑓 𝑓

Where λ1 and λ2 are, respectively, the fiber length and orientation factors for a post-

cracking state, while λ3 is the group factor associated with the number of fibers crossing

a unit area.

Experimentally, there are two methods to assess tensile strength of concrete. The first one

is direct tensile test. This test needs a large cross section specimen such that it can

simulate steel fiber distribution in real beams. The problem with such a section is the

mechanism used to grip beam’s ends for testing. Moreover, one of the studies [8]

mentioned that a large cross section specimen will prevent uniform cracks from forming,

causing the sample to twist sideways. Therefore, the load condition at failure is not purely

uniaxial anymore. Nonetheless, in a small size specimen, the fractural failure will be

hindered by the boundary conditions. Moreover, it is difficult to rely on strain values to

determine direct tension strength of SFRC, especially after cracking, because they are the

result of local cracks opening. However, researchers tend to report deformation in the

form of the cracks’ width to determine direct tensile strength of steel fiber reinforced

concrete.

Other studies [9] focused on the effect of different types of steel fibers on tensile stress of
fiber-reinforced mortar indirect tension as shown in figure 2-3.
11
Figure 2-3 Direct tensile stress-strain curves for different type of SFRC (from Hai H. Dinh, 2009)

Other tests [10] on concrete cylinder specimens of 2.76 in (70 mm) diameter and with a

height of 3.35 in (85 mm), as shown in figure. 2-4, used hooked-steel fibers, high-

strength concrete, and aggregate size ranging from 0.315 in (8 mm) to 0.63 in (16 mm).

The test result showed that high strength concrete could increase both first-cracking and

post-cracking strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete.

Figure 2-4 Tensile stress-crack opening relationship for different SFRC mixes

12
One of the studies [6] used a dog-bone specimen to investigated direct tensile strength of

steel fiber reinforced concrete. This research investigated hooked-end steel fibers with

different aspect ratio. The result varied from one specimen to another even for those

made from the same material. The varied result was attributed to size of the specimen,

which prevented a uniform distribution of the fibers. Figure 2-5 shows the specimen that

was used, and some of the results that were obtained.

(b)
(a)
Figure 2-5 Dinh Direct tensile strength; (a) dog-bone specimen; (b) result

The second testing method is the splitting tensile test also referred to as the Brazilian test,

which was first introduced in 1953 [11]. In this test, the specimen and testing equipment

are the same as compression test. Thus, the test can be conducted in most facilities. This

test has been used in production application for quality control purposes. Like the

previous test, it has disadvantages also. Compared with direct tensile test, splitting tensile

test does not provide convenient data for post-cracking behavior. Another major concern
13
is that the loading condition does not represent a realistic situation for most application.

Researchers [12] mentioned that the normal test configurations could not be used to

obtain tensile strength for FRC. Nevertheless, other studies [11] presented a

methodology that can be used to obtain rough estimation of tensile strength of FRC using

splitting test. One of the studies by Tang [13] included the effect of the loading strip lying

between the actuator and the specimen, which cause non-uniform stress distribution along

the loading axis. The old equation used to determine tensile strength is

2𝑝
𝑓𝑡 =
𝜋𝐷

Where p is the applied load, and D is the specimen diameter. With the Tang modification

the equation will be:

2
2𝑝 𝑏 2 3
𝑓𝑡 = [1 − ( ) ]
𝜋𝐷 𝐷

In order to include the quasi-brittle behavior of the concrete material and the related

fracture mechanics size effect, the reason for the big differences between the splitting

tensile strength and true tensile strength, studies [14] suggested using a strip not more

than 8% of the specimen’s diameter and the loading speed not more 1.0 MPa per minute.

14
 2.1.3. Flexural Strength and Flexural Toughness of SFRC

There are two types of flexural strength [1] for SFRC. The first one is first-crack flexural

strength, which shows a linear behavior as shown in figure2-7 (point A). From studies

[9], it was found out that this flexural strength could be increased by almost 100% for

concrete reinforced with 1% of straight steel fibers. Another study [15] reported that 2%

of hooked steel fiber with aspect ratio of 64 could increase first-crack flexural strength of

high strength concrete up to 127%. In another research [16], it was reported that hooked

fiber ranging from 0.5% to 1.5% with aspect ratio of 60 could increase first-crack flexural

strength of 5000 psi to 12500 psi concrete up to 40%. The second one is ultimate flexural

strength shown in figure 2-6 (point C), which is related to maximum load achieved, and

therefore is more important for design considerations. Flexural strength can be increased

by increasing fiber volume fraction and fibers’ aspect ratio (l/d). Another researcher [17]

reported that hooked-end fibers or enlarge-end fibers can increase ultimate flexural

strength by 100%.

Figure 2-6 Important characteristics of the load-deflection curve (ASTM C

1018)

15
Another important characteristic that should be determined for SFRC is flexural

toughness. American concrete institute (ACI 544) defines flexural toughness under static

loading as the area under load-deflection curve. In other words, it is the total energy

observed before separation. Flexural toughness is represented by flexural toughness

index. The flexural toughness index [18] [19] is the area under load-deflection curve of

steel fibers to specified end-point to the area up to first- crack. Studies [20] [21]found that

flexural toughness depends on type, and concentration of fibers as shown in figure 2-7. It

is important to mention that flexural toughness refers to the toughening effect of the

fibers distinct from other effects like strengthening of first-crack occurrence.

Figure 2-7 Effect of hooked and straight steel fibers on flexural performance of concrete. (From Hai H.
Dinh,2009)

16
 2.1.4. Compressive strength of SFRC

According to ACI 544, the effect of steel fiber on the compressive of concrete is variable.

The increasing in compressive strength ranges from 0 to 23% with 2% volumetric ratio of

steel fiber with l/d = 100. It was showed in one of the studies [22] that using 1.5%

volumetric ratio of steel fiber could increase the compressive strength by 37%. On the

other hand, another study [16] reported that using the same previous ratio of steel fibers

increased the peak compressive strength by less 10 %.

What is certain is that steel fiber can improve the post-peak compressive strength of

concrete. It can be seen from figure 2-8 that the descending part of stress-strain curve is

less steep when fiber is used. In other words, using steel fiber increases the toughness and

energy observation. This feature is useful to prevent a sudden explosive failure of

concrete, and therefore is successfully used to improve high strength concrete.

Figure 2-8 Effect of the volume of fibers on the compressive stress-strain curve (From ACI 544)

17
 2.2. Mechanical Properties of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete PPFRC

Polypropylene fiber is a synthetic hydrocarbon polymer. According to ACI 544R-2003,

synthetic fibers are fibers made and developed by man using petrochemical and textile

industries. Monofilament form of polypropylene fibers are made through an extrusion

process. Like any other type of fibers, polypropylene fibers are used to enhancing tensile

and flexural strength of concrete. In addition, polypropylene fiber inhabits and controls

plastic shrinkage cracks.

2.2.1. Tensile-Flexural and Compression Strength of PPFRC

From one of the studies [23], it was inferred that a linear increasing in tensile-flexural

strength of PPFRC up to 70% with fiber volumetric ratio 0.40%. Nonetheless, any further

increasing in the fiber ratio would decrease the tensile-flexural strength. Polypropylene

fiber has a significant effect on the tensile-flexural strength, but it barely has an effect on

compression strength. From the same study, it was concluded that by adding a volumetric

ratio of polypropylene fiber up to 0.40% can increase concrete compressive by 5%.

Nevertheless, 0.55% to 0.60% volumetric ratio will decrease the compressive strength by

3% and 5% respectively.

18
 2.2.2. Flexural Strength and Flexural Toughness of PPFRC

It has been reported that for the flexural strength and modules of rapture, polypropylene

fibers do not have a significant effect. According to one of the studies [24] adding 0.1%

volumetric ratio of fibrillated polypropylene fiber would slightly increase pre-cracking

flexural strength. However, a fiber content ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 by volume will

decrease the pre-flexural strength. From another study [25], it was concluded that

modules of rapture for fibrillated concrete is slightly increased than plain concrete by

using 0.1 to 0.3 volumetric ratio of polypropylene fiber. Figure 2-9 illustrated the effect

of fiber on the modals of rapture.

Figure 2-9 The effect of Fiber content on the modules of rapture (From ACI 544)

Flexural strength is influenced by many factors such as fiber material, length, geometry

and bonding. Polypropylene fibers have been used to enhance it. Using load-controlled

machines [25] 0.1% by volume, the polypropylene fiber did not have an effect on the

concrete, which experienced a sudden failure. In contrast, beams with 0.2% and 0.3%

19
volumetric ration showed a significant increase in the flexural toughness. It was reported

by another study [26] that even beams with 0.1% by volume can give toughness index of

3 or more by using deflection-controlled machine or closed-loop testing machine

specified by ASTM 1018.

2.2.3. Cracking and Shrinkage of PPFRC

There are several types of cracks in concrete. However, they can be classified into two

types based on the age of the concrete. The first is hardening concrete cracks. The second

type is plastic shrinkage cracks. Polypropylene fiber has a greater influence on the second

type rather than the first one. In order to determine the influence of polypropylene fiber

on concrete, rectangular square slabs have been used. Ring specimen [27] was used to

simulate restrained shrinkage cracks. From the study, it was concluded that PPFRC could

control drying shrinkage cracks. In addition, it can reduce crack width. Another study

[28] focused on unrestrained PPFRC. They inferred that fiber of 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% by

volume reduced drying shrinkage cracks by 18%, 59% and 10%, respectively. They also

concluded a shrinkage reduction for fiber content ranging from 0.1 % to 0.3% by volume.

Moreover, it was found that polypropylene fiber reduced surface water bleeding.

Therefore, it can increase concrete life. Figure 2-10 shows the relation between average

crack width and fiber content.

20
Figure 2-10 Average Cracks width Versus Fiber content (From ACI 544)

2.2.4. Shear Strength of PPFRC

As was mentioned previously, polypropylene increases concrete first-crack resistant.

Whereas, once cracks are developed, polypropylene fiber cannot sustain them as well as

steel fibers. It was concluded [23] for 0.2% to 0.4% by volume fiber that polypropylene

fiber can increase the load carrying capacity of concrete beams up to first-crack. Once the

crack develops, failure will occur with load less than the one obtained beam without any

fiber. When fiber content is increased to 0.6% by volume, there is an increase in the

failure load. One study [29] used the monofilament fiber type. It was concluded that 1%

of polypropylene fiber could increase shear strength by 80% to 85%.

21
 2.3. Shear Failure Mechanism of FRC

Concrete is a brittle material. Its tensile strength is considerably lower than its

compressive strength. Reinforced concrete fails suddenly in shear without any previous

warning [30]. The failure mechanism starts with diagonal cracks, which can be wider

than flexural cracks.

2.3.1. Failure of Plain Concrete Beams

In any flexural member subjected to a concentrated load at distance “a” from one support,

all elements of that member experience shear and moment as shown in figure 2-11. From

beam theory, these stresses can be determined by the equations:

𝑀𝑦 12 𝑉𝑥𝑦
𝑓(𝑥, 𝑦) = =
𝐼 𝑏ℎ3

𝑉𝑄 6𝑉 ℎ2
𝑣(𝑦) = = ( − 𝑦2)
𝐼𝑏 𝑏ℎ3 4

On one hand, it can be seen from fig. 2-8 that the top and the bottom fibers at distance

“x” from the left support are subjected to tension and compression-bending stress,

respectively. On the other hand, the mid-depth is subjected to a pure-shear stress.

Elements located between mid-depth and extreme fibers experience accompanied

bending-shear stress. The maximum tensile normal stress is located at the extreme bottom

fiber. At that location, flexural cracks will develop. For plain concrete, complete failure

will occur due to the development of flexural cracks.

22
Figure 2-11 Plain concrete beam subjected to concentrated load

2.3.2. Failure of Longitudinally Reinforced Beams without Diagonal

Tension Reinforcement

Adding longitudinal reinforcement to concrete will enhance its flexural characteristics.

This reinforcement will bridge cracks allowing stress transfer through cracks.

Consequently, the failure mechanism of longitudinally reinforced concrete may be shifted

to shear failure depending on factors such as shear span, longitudinal reinforcement ratio,

and concrete strength.

Shear failure of longitudinally reinforced concrete is explained in many references [30].

As it was mentioned previously, adding rebar to a beam allows it to exhibit more flexural

cracks. At the same time, shear cracks will develop in the elements located between

section mid-depth and bottom fibers.

23
Elements located between mid-depth and top fiber are subjected to accompanied shear-

compressive bending stress as shown in figure. 2-12. Cracks are inhibited in these

elements because the maximum principal stress in these elements is

compression. However, elements located between mid-depth and bottom fiber are

subjected to companied shear-tensile bending stress. It is known that tensile strength of

concrete is very low compared with its compressive strength. Therefore, tension cracks

will develop at these elements because maximum principle stress is tensile.

Figure 2-12 Crack pattern and principal stresses in longitudinally reinforced concrete beam

2.3.3. Modes of Failure of Beams Without Diagonal Tension Reinforcements

Shear span/depth ratio is an important factor in determining the failure mode of beams

without diagonal tension reinforcements. Shear span/ depth ratio is the distance from the

24
load application point to the support in the case of a concentrated load. However, it is the

clear span in the case of a uniformly distributed load. Based on this ratio, there are three

possible failure modes.

The first mode of failure is the flexural failure mode. This mode occurs in slender beams

whose shear span/depth (a/d) ratio is more than 5.5 in the case of a concentrated load.

This failure mode starts with flexural cracks in the middle third of the beam span. This

type of beam fails either due to yielding longitudinal reinforcements, which fractures the

beam providing ample warning in case of low amount of reinforcement, or the crashing

of concrete around the load application point without any ample warning as in the case of

a high amount of reinforcement. This type of failure can be seen in figure 2-13a

The second type of failure is called a diagonal tension failure. The shear span/depth (a/d)

ratio for normal strength concrete ranges from 2.5 to 5.5 in the case of a concentrated

load. For this mode, both flexural and diagonal cracks developed. Without any previous

warning, two or three cracks developed at a distance of (1.5d to 2d) from the support.

One of these cracks widen and split the beam into two sections as shown in figure 2-13b

The last mode of failure is called shear compression failure. The shear span/depth (a/d)

ratio for a concentrated loaded beam ranges from 1 to 2.5. This mode is almost similar to

the previous one. At first, a few flexural cracks appeared, and then diagonal cracks,

which are steeper than cracks of the previous case, appeared. These cracks progressed

toward the top fiber. Failure occurred when the crack met with crashed concrete around

the concentrated load as shown in figure 2-13C.

25
Figure 2-13 Failure modes(from Nawy, 2009) (a) Flexural failure; (b) Diagonal tension failure; (c) Shear
compression failure

26
 2.3.4. Web Steel Reinforcement in Beams

Adding transfer reinforcement in form of stirrups enhances the shear characteristics of

concrete in addition to improving shear resistance. Stirrups play a significant role in

carrying part of the external factored load, holding longitudinal reinforcements in place

by maintaining the required dowel capacity, and restricting the growth of diagonal cracks.

According to some research [31], [32], stirrups were effective after crack formation. They

redistribute shear stresses after the formation of diagonal cracks. They take this tension

stress back to the concrete leading to more cracks.

𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦𝑡 𝑑
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑠
𝑉𝑠 = { 𝑆 }
𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦𝑡 𝑑
(sin 𝛼 + cos 𝛼) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑠
𝑆

Figure 2-14 Shear resistant component (From Dinh,, 2009)

27
 2.3.5. Failure of SFRC Beams without Stirrups Reinforcement

The behavior of a longitudinally reinforced SFRC beam without any stirrups is similar to

a RC beam with stirrups reinforcement. Both steel fibers and stirrups contribute to shear

resistance after cracks occur. They carry redistributed tensile stress and prevent crack

propagation. However, steel fibers have a better control on crack width and promote

multiply cracks thereby creating better stress distribution. Another similarity is that steel

fibers prevent concrete splitting around the longitudinal reinforcement.

Challenges with SFRC emerge in shear strength analysis for two reasons. First,

distribution of steel fibers in concrete, which insures developing uniform mechanical

properties, is somewhat uncertain. Second, the increase in cracks opening is the result of

fibers pulling out rather than yielding. Therefore, it is bond failure, which makes it more

complicated problem.

It has been observed [33] that in terms of ultimate strength a similar performance is

obtained by using steel fibers instead of stirrups for shear reinforcement. In addition, it

was inferred [6] that using hooked-steel fibers in a volume fraction equal or greater than

0.75% can improve shear strength up to 4√𝑓′𝑐. Furthermore, the same hooked-steel

fibers if used by the same volume fraction can replace stirrups as minimum shear

reinforcement specified by ACI 318. The same conclusion was also supported by Kranti

Jain (2013) [34].

28
 2.4. Prediction Shear Strength of SFRC

Since the behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) is relatively complicated,

most of the predictive methods depend on regression analysis. A number of factors effect.

such as span-to-effective depth ratio; longitudinal reinforcement; and tensile strength of

fiber reinforced concrete, which are concrete matrix properties; fiber aspect ratio; fiber

ratio; fiber shape, can affect shear strength of FRC

 Sharma (1986) [35] proposed an empirical formula to estimate the shear strength

of fiber reinforced concrete depending on the splitting tensile strength, fct, and

span-to-effective-depth ratio (a/d)

𝑑 1/4
𝑣𝑢 = (𝑘𝑓𝑐𝑡 ) (𝑎)

Where k =2/3 was determined from tests

 Narayanan and Darwish (1987) [36] proposed an equation to determine the shear

strength of FRC that considers splitting tensile strength,fct, dowel action (as

function of longitudinal reinforcement), fiber pullout forces along inclined crack,

and shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d)

𝑑
𝑣𝑢 = 𝑒𝐴′ 𝑓𝑐𝑡 + 𝑒𝐵 ′ 𝜌 + 𝑣𝑏
𝑎

Where e coefficient accounts for beam/ach action which value is approximately 1 for

slender beam (a/d > 2.8) and is 2.8d/a for (a/d ≤ 2.8). A’, and B’ were estimated based on

regression analysis of 91 tests, which gave these value A’=0.24, B’= 80 MPa. Vb is the

bond stress based on all fibers crossing 45-degree diagonal. The fiber bond stress, τ , was
29
assumed to be along ¼ of the fiber length. The number of the fibers over unit area, nw,

was estimated based on Romualdi et al. (1963) [37] as follows.

1.64𝑉𝑓
𝑛𝑤 =
𝜋𝐷𝑓2

The above equation reflects the number of fibers crossing the diagonal crack that have a

vertical projection from the top center of the longitudinal reinforcement to the lower tip

of the compression reign. In order to avoid all these calculations the author derived an

equation to determine vb

𝐿𝑓
𝑣𝑏 = 0.41𝜏𝑉𝑓
𝐷𝑓

Fiber geometry was considered using a factor β

𝐿𝑓
𝑣𝑏 = 0.41𝜏𝑉𝑓 𝛽 = 0.41𝜏𝐹
𝐷𝑓

Where β is 0.5 for the rounded fiber, 0.75 for the crimped and 1 for the indented fiber.

The bond stress, τ, is equal to 4.1 MPa based on Swamy et al. (1974) [38]. The author did

include the effect of the compression and aggregates interlock.

 Al-Ta’an and Al-Feel (1990) [39]proposed an expression to determine shear

strength based on the shear-resisting component. The first component included

the influence of compression region, aggregate interlock and dowel action which

is

𝑑 1/3 𝑎
𝑣𝑐 = (10𝜌𝑓′𝑐 ) (𝑀𝑃𝑎)𝑓𝑜𝑟 > 2.5
𝑎 𝑑
30
 𝑑 4/3 𝑎
𝑣𝑐 = (160𝜌𝑓′𝑐)1/3 ( ) (𝑀𝑃𝑎)𝑓𝑜𝑟 < 2.5
𝑎 𝑑

The other component considered the effect of the fiber that is accounted using post-

cracking tensile stress along the diagonal crack. However, in their research they excluded

the depth of the compression region from the crack height. The fiber effect can be

determined using

𝜎𝑝𝑐 = 0.5𝜏𝐹

 Khuntia, Stojadinovic and Goel (1999) [40]proposed an expression that consider

two terms also. The first contribution is based on dowel action, aggregate

interlock, and compression region. They are presented in one term

𝑣𝑐 = 0.167 √𝑓′𝑐 (MPa)

The second contribution is the post-cracking effect of fiber which is 0.41𝜏𝐹. By

assuming is 𝜏 = 0.68√𝑓′𝑐 and the vertical projection of the diagonal crack equals to

0.9d.

𝑣𝑓𝑟 = 0.41𝜏𝐹 (MPa)

𝐿
𝐹 = 𝑉𝑓 𝐷𝑓 𝛽,
𝑓

𝜏 = 0.68√𝑓′𝑐

:. 𝑣𝑓𝑟 = 0.41 ∗ 0.68√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 ∗ 0.9 ∗ 𝐹 = 0.25𝐹√𝑓′𝑐 MPa

By including the arch action α, which is equal to 2.5 d/a, to the term vc, the term will be

𝑣𝑢 = (0.167 ∝ +0.25𝐹)√𝑓′𝑐 (MPa)

31
  Hai H. Dinh (2009) [6]proposed an expression to estimate shear strength SFRC

without stirrups. In his research, he considered shear force due to compression

and tensile force due to steel fiber. He neglected the effect of the aggregate

interlock and dowel action because the widening of crack at failure will diminish

the effect of aggregate interlock. In addition, the dowel action was ignored

because it was believed to be small.

𝑉𝑢 = 𝑉𝑐𝑐 + 𝑉𝑓

𝑉𝑐𝑐 = 0.11𝛽1 𝑓 ′ 𝑐 . 𝑏. 𝑐

𝑐
𝑉𝑓 = 𝜎𝑓𝑢 (1 − ) cot 𝛼
𝑑

𝐿𝑓
𝜎𝑓𝑢 = 𝐾 √0.0075𝑉𝑓
𝐷𝑓

0.85 𝑖𝑓 𝑓 ′ 𝑐 < 4000 𝑝𝑠𝑖

0.05𝑓 ′ 𝑐
Where 𝛽 = {1.05 − 𝑖𝑓 4000𝑝𝑠𝑖 < 𝑓 ′ 𝑐 < 8000 𝑝𝑠𝑖 , α ranging (37.5 to 40) ,
1000
0.65 𝑖𝑓 𝑓 ′ 𝑐 > 8000 𝑝𝑠𝑖

K = 400 psi

This expression is limited to the hooked-end steel fiber, ρ ≤ 2%, with a volumetric ration

of more than 0.5 and concrete compressive strength ranging from 3000 to 8000 psi.

32
 Chapter 3: Experimental Program

3.1. Introduction

As mentioned in chapters 1 and 2, fibers are used to enhance both plastic and harden

concrete characteristics. The experimental program of this research provides further

understanding of using steel fiber, hybrid steel and fibrillated polypropylene fiber, and

hybrid monofilament and fibrillated polypropylene fiber to enhance concrete

characteristics.

The experimental program aimed to answer the following questions:

(1) What are the shear strength, cracks patterns, cracks width, and flexural toughness

of fiber reinforced concrete?

(2) How do these results change if the fiber type is changed?

(3) Can 1% fiber be used to substitute minimum shear reinforcement as specified by

ACI Committee 318 for RC beams?

The concrete strength for the experimental beams was selected as a “medium-high”

capacity of 6000 psi. This capacity was selected in order to reflect the expected

capacities of the future concretes, possibly in the next one or two decades.

The experimental program involved designing, manufacturing, and testing about one-

third scale simply supported beam specimens subjected to two concentrated

symmetrical loads. In addition, a fiber bond test, a trial mix test, cylinder tests, and a

rebar test were conducted

33
 3.2. Beam Specimens

The experimental program consisted of five beam specimens of the same size. Each

specimen had a different shear resisting system. The first three specimens were

reinforced with 1% volumetric ratio of hooked-end steel, crimped-steel and crimped-

monofilament polypropylene. The fourth specimen was reinforced with minimum shear

steel reinforcement specified by ACI 318 [41]. The last one did not have shear steel

reinforcement or fiber. Table 3-1 shows the detail of these specimens.

The system used to identify the specimens was based on two parts. The first part of the

specimen name refers to its number in the sequence. The second part refers to the shear

resisting system that was used such as HS which refers to hooked-end steel fiber.

34
Table 3-1 Design properties of the beam specimens

Beams(*) ρ Fiber type Shear resisting system Vf Targeted f’c

B1-MS 2.42% No fiber Conventional Minimum Steel 0% 6000

reinforcement

B2-HS 2.42% Novocon 1050 Hooked-end Steel fiber 1.0% 6000

B3-CS 2.42% Novomesh Crimped-Steel fiber 1.0% 6000

850**

B4-CPP 2.42% Novomesh Crimped monofilament 1.0% 6000

950** Polypropylene fiber

B5-NS 2.42% No fiber No Shear Zero 6000

(*) All beams dimensions b x h x l = 4” x 6”x 72”

(**) For Novomesh 850, Novomesh 950, only crimped steel fiber and crimped

monofilament polypropylene fiber were used.

35
 3.3. Fixed Parameters

3.3.1. Shear Span-to-Effective Depth Ratio

Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d) of all beam specimens was fixed at 4 in order to

obtain diagonal tension (shear) failure. It is noted for (a/b) less than 2.5, a direct strut

from the loading point to the support is formed leading to increase beam strength

compared to slender beams. However, for slender beams with (a/d) approximately more

than 5.5, flexural failure is expected.

3.3.2. Beam Size

The tested specimen beams were a one-third scale model. In other words, the dimensions

of the model were determined by dividing the dimensions of an assumed prototype beam

by 3. The depth of the model beam was chosen based on the ease of handling. In addition,

increasing the beam height significantly affected the total length of the model, as it was

seen in the beam length determination. Therefore, 7 inches depth met the mentioned

criteria. The width of the beam was chosen to maintain adequate room for longitudinal

reinforcement and provide 0.75 inches cover.

It can be seen from figure 3-1 that the test set up is a four-point test. Therefore, there are

two possible locations for shear failure, which are the left and right span. These spans

were designed to have span-effective depth ratio (a/d) of 3.6. In order to keep

consistency, the length of the middle span was kept equal to the other two spans, as

shown in table 3-2.

36
Figure 3-1 Load, Dimension and cross section for the tested beams

Table 3-2 Beam Dimension

Beam Dimension

b 4.5 in
d 5.9
a/d 3.6
a 3.6(5.8) = 21 in
f 21
Ldh 3.25
Total length 69 in

37
 3.3.3. Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement for the Control Beam

The longitudinal reinforcement ratio was selected based on ensuring shear failure control.

In other words, the goal was to ensure that the beam would not fail by flexure, but by

shear. Therefore, a relatively high reinforcement ratio of 2.42% was chosen for

longitudinal reinforcement.

Allowable applied load failure (Qsp) required for plain concrete was determined by using

the equation 2.0√𝑓′𝑐𝑏𝑤 𝑑. However, depending on proposal according to past research

[42], allowable load failure (Qsf) required for fiber reinforced concrete was determined

using 3.5√𝑓′𝑐𝑏𝑤 𝑑 as shown below. Table 3-3 shows calculations for shear and flexural

strength of beam specimens.

The control beam was designed without any fibers but it had transverse reinforcement for

comparison purposes. As mentioned before, the beams were approximately third scale

model, and no. 7 wires were used as transverse reinforcement.

2√6000
𝑉𝑐 = 2√𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 = ∗ 4.5 ∗ 5.8 = 4.04 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000
𝑑 5.8
𝑉𝑠 = 𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 = 32 ∗ 2(0.0165) ∗ = 2.1 kips
𝑠 2.9

Vu = Vc +Vs = 4.04 + 2.1 = 6.14 kip

𝑄𝑠 = 2𝑉𝑢 = 2(6.14) = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟐𝟖 𝒌𝒊𝒑𝒔

For the fiber reinforced concrete:

3.5√6000
𝑉𝑐𝑓 = 3.5√𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 = ∗ 4.5 ∗ 5.8 = 7.08 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000
38
 𝑄𝑠 = 2𝑉𝑐𝑝 = 𝟏𝟒. 𝟏𝟓 𝒌𝒊𝒑𝒔

The calculation of beam flexural strength was done using the traditional method
of reinforced concrete as shown below.

𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 68(0.62)
𝑎= = 0.85(6)(4.5) = 1.84
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐.𝑏

𝑎 68(0.62) 1.84
𝑀𝑢 = 𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 [𝑑 − 2] = [5.8 − ] = 17.2 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡
12 2

𝑄𝑚 = 1.1 𝑀𝑢 = 𝟏𝟖. 𝟕 𝒌𝒊𝒑𝒔

Table 3-3 Calculation for flexural and shear strength

f’c b d Qs As Mu Qm Failure Beam

Beams(*)
(psi) in in kips in2 k-1 k type type

Minimum Steel
B1-MS 6000 4.5 5.8 12.28 0.62 14.96 18.7 Shear
reinforcement

Hooked-end
B2-HS 6000 4.5 5.8 14.15 0.62 14.96 18.7 Shear
Steel fiber

Crimped-Steel
B3-CS 6000 4.5 5.8 14.15 0.62 14.96 18.7 Shear
fiber

Crimped

B4-CPP 6000 4.5 5.8 14.15 0.62 14.96 18.7 Shear Polypropylene

fiber

No Shear
B5-NS 6000 4.5 5.8 8.08 0.62 14.96 18.7 Shear
reinforcement

39
Figure 3-2 shows the reinforcement details for test beams.There were two types of

beams. One was designed with shear reinforcement, which was the control with

minimum steel shear reinforcement. The other was designed without steel shear

reinforcement. This detail was used for a second control beam and for beams with fiber

reinforcement.

a) Reinforcement detail for B1-MS

b) Reinforcement detail for other specimens

Figure 3-2 Reinforcement details and beams dimension

40
 3.3.4. Fiber Volume Fraction

Reviewing the literature shows that a volumetric ratio of 1.0% of steel fibers can satisfy

the minimum shear reinforcement specified by ACI-318. In addition, using a volumetric

ratio more than 1%, and up 2.0% can slightly increase shear strength . In other words, the

enhancement in shear characteristics when fiber content increase from 0.5% to 1.0%

volumetric ratio is more than when fiber content increases from 1.05 to 2.0% volumetric

ratio. Therefore, 1.0% volumetric ratio was considered as a reasonable ratio for test

specimens.

41
 3.3.5. Concrete Compressive Strength

The targeted compressive strength was 6000 psi. Three trial mixes were made in order to

obtain a compressive strength close to 6000 psi. One of the mixes was designed using

Design and Controlling of Concrete Mixture. However, the other two were designed

based on the literature. For each mix, four cylinders were prepared. Two of the cylinders

were tested at the age of twenty-eight days while the other two were tested at the age of

seven and fourteen days. The mix that was utilized gave a compressive strength of 6200

psi, as shown in the table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Mix proportion for each type of fiber

Material Proportion by weight for 1 ft3

Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3
Cement 25 25 25
Sand 45 45 45
Coarse aggregate 75 75 75
Water 14.5 14.5 14.5
W/C 0.58 0.58 0.58
Hooked end steel 5.2 - -
fiber
Crimped steel fiber - 5.2 -
Crimped - - 0.6
polypropylene fiber
Slump after adding 8” 7” 5”
fiber

42
 3.4. Varied Parameters

3.4.1. Fiber Types

There are three types of fibers used in this experimental program. These fibers are

manufactured by Propex. The first type of fiber is Novocon 1050, which is hooked-end

steel fiber. The second type is Novomesh 850. This type is a hybrid of two fibers, which

are crimped-steel fibers and fibrillated-polypropylene fiber. The last one is Novomesh

950. Similar to the previous one, this type is also is a hybrid fiber of two types. However,

both of them are made of polypropylene. These fibers are monofilament fibers of

sinusoidal deformations and fibrillated polypropylene fibers. All these fibers can be seen

in figure 3-3. In addition, their properties are listed in table 3-5, where aspect ratio is the

approximate ratio of length to diameter.

Table 3-5 Type and Characteristics of the used fibers

Fiber type Diameter Length Aspect ratio

Novocon 1050 0.039 in (1.0 mm) 2 in (50 mm) 50

Novomesh 850 (*) - 1.5 in (38 mm) 34

Novomesh 950(*) 0.033 in (0.83 mm) 1.8 in (45 mm) 55

* Only crimped steel fiber and monofilament polypropylene fiber were used.

43
 Hooked end
Crimped steel
steel Crimped PPl

Figure 3-3 Fibers used in the experimental program

3.5. Fabrication of Reinforcement Cages and Formwork

Reinforcement cages were constructed at Portland State University “Hoophouse” Lab.

First, they were cut to the required length. The longitudinal reinforcement was hooked by

180” to prevent any bond failure. Second, formwork was constructed using plywood and

the interior faces of the formwork were oiled before concrete placement. Figure 3-4

shows some examples of the laboratory site preparation.

44
Figure 3-4 Steel fabrication and form work

45
 3.6. Proportioning, Mixing and Curing of FRC

The amounts of cement, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate, were determined depending

on the targeted compressive strength using trial mixes. However, the required amount of

each type of fibers was determined depending on the specific gravity, which was

determined in the lab or provided by a producer. Table 3-6 shows the specific gravity and

the amount of fiber used one cubic foot.

Table 3-6 Proportion of mixed fibers

Fiber type Specific gravity Amount in lb for every ft3

Novocon 1050 7.84 5.1

Novomesh 850* 7.84 5.1

Novomesh 950* 0.91 0.6

* For Novomesh 850 and Novomesh 950, only crimped steel fibers and crimped

monofilament

The mixing of the materials was done at Portland State University’s Hoophouse Lab

using 2.5 ft3 mixer. Fine and coarse aggregates were first mixed for two minutes. Then

cement was added and left to be mixed for another two minutes, then water was added to

the mix. Fibers were the last ingredient to be added. In order to ensure a sufficient mixing

and distributing of fibers, the concrete was mixed for five minutes.

The curing of the beam specimens started on the second day. The beams were covered

with burlap sheets and kept moist for twenty-eight days. For the cylinders, concrete was

46
cast in plastic test cylinders. On the seventh day, they were opened and moved to the

curing room.

3.7. Instrumentation and Testing

3.7.1. Steel Tensile Test

The Instron, a direct tensile stress machine housed in the Department of Mechanical and

Materials Lab at Portland State University was used to determine the tensile capacity of

steel. This machine is shown in figure 3-5. The strain was determined using two methods.

The first one used strain gages fixed on the rebar. The second used a “laser

extensometer”. The second method was done by fixing two reflectors on the surface of

the steel rebar. The laser extensometer determined the length of the rebar surrounded by

the two reflectors. After applying the load, the laser extensometer recoded the length

increase. From knowing the original length and increment in the length, strain can be

determined.

Figure 3-5 Direct tensile testing machine “Instorn”

47
 3.7.2. Flexural Reinforcement

For longitudinal reinforcement, No. 5 rebars were used as the main flexural

reinforcement. The direct tensile test was conducted for three samples. A pre-stressing

frame was used to test the specimens. Two splicers were placed at the end of the rebar to

hold them. The axial tensile load was applied using hydraulic ramp. The test setup is

shown in Figure 3-6. The load was monitored using a load cell that was connected to a

computer (data acquisition system). The strain was determined using a strain gage. The

obtained stress-strain relationship is showing in figure.3-7.

Ramp

Specimen

Load cell

Splicer

Figure 3-6 Test Setup

Main steel reinforcement

80

60
Stress (ksi)

40

20

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain (in/in)

Figure 3-7 Stress-strain curve for longitudinal reinforcement

48
 3.7.3. Concrete Compressive Test

Two cylindrical specimens were molded for each beam specimen. Another two fiber

reinforced concrete cylindrical specimens were molded for beam specimens with fiber.

Therefore, each fiber reinforced concrete beam specimen had at least four cylindrical

specimens. In order to ensure a fiber distribution similar to the one in the beams, 6”

diameter by 12” height cylinders were used. Cylinders were sampled, compacted and

cured following the ASTM specification [43] [44] [45]. A plastic cylindrical mold that

can be covered with a plastic lid was used in order to keep the moisture for more than one

day. After three to five days the plastic molds were opened and the cylinders were moved

to the curing room until the testing day. An ACCU-TEK 250 digital series compression

tester, which is shown in figure 3-8, was used to determine the compressive strength.

Figure 3-8 Concrete compressive machine (from

http://www.hoskin.ca/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&manufacturers_id=89)

49
 3.7.4. Splitting Tensile Strength

For each type of beam, two cylinders were sampled following ASTM C172 (2007). Then

they were cured based on ASTM C31/C31M. The cylinders were taken out of the curing

room after twenty-eight days. Then, two concrete strain gages, PL-60-11-1L, were

attached on two end faces of the cylinders in a way that the applied load (vertical) would

be perpendicular to the horizontal axis of the strain gages. The splitting tensile test was

conducted following ASTM C496 [46] as shown in figure4-4. A concrete compressive

tester was used to apply the load.

50
 3.8. Beam Test Setup

A load contain system was used to test the beam specimens. This system consist of a

hydraulic actuator with 40-kip load capacity in which each stroke applies 1 kip. The

applied load on the beam specimens was measured by a load cell while a linear variable

differential transformer (LVDT) determined the defection of the specimens. Figure 3-9

shows the beam test setup.

Figure 3-9 Beam test setup

51
 3.9. Material Testing and Properties

3.9.1. Shear Reinforcement

For shear reinforcement, a steel wire of gage 7 was used as stirrups. The stress-strain

relationship for this wire was obtained using direct tensile testing following the ASTM

A370. Yield strength, ultimate strength, and other characteristics of this wire are shown

in table 3-7. In addition, the stress-strain relationship is shown in figure 3-10.

Table 3-7 Diagonal shear reinforcement properties

Wire type Diameter Fy Fu

(in) (ksi) (ksi)

Black Iron wire 0.145 31.0 51.0

Stress Vs. Strain

60
50
Stress ( ksi)

40
30
20
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain

Figure 3-10 Stress-Strain relationship for diagonal shear reinforcement wire

52
 Chapter 4: Result of the Experimental Program

4.1. Introduction

This chapter is divided into two main parts. The first part focuses on the mechanical

properties and behavior of the fiber reinforced concrete, which are compressive, tensile,

toughness, and modules of elasticity. The second part provides a detailed analysis of the

fiber reinforced concrete beams. Each is discussed separately to describe the behavior of

the reinforced concrete beams by reviewing load versus deflection relationship, crack

width, crack pattern, shear strength, and failure mode.

4.2. Mechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete

4.2.1. Compressive Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete

At least two cylindrical specimens were tested on the same day of the beam testing,

which was twenty-eight days after casting. For beams reinforced with fibers, another two

specimens were tested using ACCU-TEK 250 digital series compression tester following

ASTM [44]. In addition, there were two cylinders used to determine the stress-strain

diagram for plain and fiber reinforced concrete. Therefore, for each beam specimen there

were at least five cylindrical specimens that were tested. The compressive test results are

shown in figure 4-1.

53
Table 4-1 Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity

f’c (psi)
Modulus

of

Elasticity
Beam Plain Concrete Fiber reinforced concrete
Beam
(ksi)
Type

C1 C2 C3 C4 Ave C1 C2 C3 C4 Ave

B1- Min.
7253 7188 7188 7700 7332 - - - - - 4320
MS renf.

B2- Hook
7253 7188 7188 7700 7332 5823 6781 6374 7000 6495 5332
HS steel

B3- Crimp
5805 6400 - - 6102 5399 5753 6155 5723 5758 4180
CS steel

B4- Crimp
6441 6981 - - 6711 6649 6833 7046 7127 6914 4356
CPP PPl

B5- No
6441 6981 - - 6711 - - - - - -
NS reinf.

54
It can be seen from the results represented in the Table 4-1 that both types of steel fiber

reduced the compressive strength. For hooked-end steel fiber the reduction was 11%.

However, it was about 6% in case of the crimped-steel fiber. One of the reasons for the

reduction in the compressive strength is the low amount of fine aggregate compared with

coarse aggregate. In other words, the amount of fine aggregate that was used was not

enough to fill all the additional voids created by the steel fiber. For example, one of the

researches [47] used a fine aggregate to coarse aggregate ratio of 1.3% to obtain an

increment in compressive strength up to 5.5 %. The polypropylene fiber did not have that

significant of an effect on the compressive strength.

In addition to the compressive strength, stress-strain and modules of elasticity were

determined. In this test, the strain was captured using 2.4” strain gauges. At least one

strain gage was placed along the length of the cylindrical specimen. A pressure meter was

used to determine the applied load. The data represented in figure 4-1 shows that the

behavior of all specimens was similar up to the failure point, which occurred at strain of

0.003. However, the benefits of the fiber were determined after the failure by preventing

the concrete from exploding , especially in the high strength concrete that occurred for

the control specimens. This effect could not be determined using the stress-strain diagram

because the strain gages split most of the time from the specimens when failure occurred.

Figure 4-2 shows some photos of the tested specimens.

55
 Plain Conrete (B1-MS) Hooked end Steel fiber (B2-
10 HS)
8 8
Stress (ksi)

6 6

Stress (ksi)
4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Strain (in/in)
Strain (in/in)

Crimped Polypropylene Crimped Steel Fiber (B3-CS)

Fiber (B4-CPP) 7
6
8
5
Stress (ksi)

6
Stress (ksi)

4
4 3
2
2
1
0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain (in/in) Strain (in/in)

Figure 4-1 Stress-Strain curves

56
Figure 4-2 Cylinders failure pattern

57
 4.2.2. Splitting Tensile Strength

The tensile splitting strength for each type of specimen was calculated from the

maximum recorded failure load. Figure 4-4 shows the loading system. The effect of

plywood bearing strips was included in order to reduce the tolerance from the direct

tensile test. The tensile strength was determined using the Tang [13] correction

2
2𝑃 𝑏 2 3
𝜎𝑡 = [1 − ( ) ]
𝜋𝐷𝐿 𝐷

Where P is failure load, D is specimen diameter, L is specimen diameter, and b is the

bearing strip width.

The tensile stress-strain diagram was constructed for each type of the three fibers using at

least one of the cylindrical specimens as shown in figure 4-3. Results showed that the

tensile stain was increasing linearly as the applied load or the stress was increasing until

the section was cracked. After the cracking point, failure was obtained in the control

section which did not have any type of fiber. From its test name, it can be concluded that

failure pattern was splitting the cylinders into two halves. At this point, the strain gage

was either destroyed or it was reading the maximum strain, which was 0.02

inches/inches.

The interpretation of the stress-strain curve for the crimped-steel fiber would show a

similar conclusion for the control one. However, this curve reflected the part of the test

result up to the cracking stage where the developed crack was bigger than was captured

by the strain gage. After cracking, the specimen kept preserving the applied load with

58
little loss to the load. In other words, the strain beyond cracking was not captured because

it was more than the strain gage capacity.

Plain Concrete (B1-MS) Crimped steel fiber (B3-CS)

600 600
Tensile strength (psi)

Tensile Stress (psi)

500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
-0.002 0.003 0.008 -0.002 0.003 0.008
Strain (in/in) Strain (in/in)

Hooked end steel fiber Crimped Polypropylene

(B2-HS) fiber (B4-Cpp)
800 800
Tensile stress (psi)

Tensile stress (psi)

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 0.005 0 0.005
Strain (in/in) Strain (in/in)

Figure 4-3 Tensile stress Vs Strain for splitting test

59
For hooked-end steel fiber, the same linear effect was obtained until section was cracked.

Since the developed crack was very small, the strain1 in term of the crack width could be

captured by strain gages. From the stress-strain curve shown in Figure 4-3, it can be

inferred that fiber prevents concrete failure by transferring stress through cracks. The test

was stopped when cracks were propagated and exceed the strain gage limit. A similar

conclusion can be inferred for the crimped-monofilament polypropylene fiber.

Nevertheless, the lost stress after section cracking was greater than hooked-end steel

fiber.

It can be concluded from the results shown in table 4-2 that splitting tensile strength for

fiber reinforced concrete is almost equal because the fiber enhanced the post-crack

characteristics by transferring stress across the crack. Finally, figure 4-4 shows some of

the failure pattern for some types of specimens.

1
When concrete is cracked, the change in its dimension cannot be called strain
anymore because it is resisted by the added material.

60
Table 4-2 Splitting tensile strength

C1 C2 Average splitting strength

Beam Fiber type
(psi) (psi) (psi)

B1-TD No Fiber 597 553 575

B2-HS Hooked end steel fiber 605 581 593

B3-CS Crimped steel fiber 557 542 550

B4- Crimped
572 587 580
CPP polypropylene

Figure 4-4 Splitting test

61
 4.2.3. Flexural Strength

For each type of fiber, three beam specimens that were 6” x 6”x 20” were sampled

following the ASTM C172, and were left to be cured for twenty-eight days. The flexural

strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete was determined based on the ASTM C1609

(2007). The four-point bending test set-up is shown in the figure 4-5. Since there was no

displacement control machine in the lab, a load control base machine, ACCU-TEK 250

digital series compression tester, was used in this test. The specimens were loaded at a

rate of 10 lb/sec. depending on the obtained load-deflection curve, and in comparison

with literature it was found that a load rate ranging from 10 lb/sec to 15 lb/sec (600

lb/min to 900 lb/min) can simulate a loading rate of 0.005 in/min, which is required by

ASTM C1609. The test was stopped at a deflection of 0.12 inches at the mid-span, which

is equivalent to 1/150 of the span length (18in).

6”

18

Figure 4-5 Flexural test setup

62
When the test was terminated at a deflection of 0.12 inches, the largest distance from the

closest support to the crack was reported as shown in table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Prism Test information

Beam Specimen No. Fiber type Vf a (in)

1 No fiber 1% 8.2

B1-TD 2 No fiber 1% 8.8

3 No fiber 1% 8.6

1 Novocon 1050 1% 10.5

B2-HS 2 Novocon 1050 1% 10

3 Novocon 1050 1% 9.5

1 Novomesh 850* 1% 7.5

B3-CS 2 Novomesh 850* 1% 8.2

3 Novomesh 850* 1% 9.2

1 Novomesh 950* 1% 7.8

B4-PP 2 Novomesh 950* 1% 8.5

3 Novomesh 950* 1% 8.0

*For Novomesh 850 and Novomesh 950, The only mulfilment fiber were used in the test.

63
The equivalent bending stress was determined based on the assumption of linear stress

distribution along the section. Therefore, the maximum flexural stress will be at the

extreme top and bottom faces.

𝑃 ℎ 𝑃
𝑀𝐶 ( 2 ∗ 𝑙) 2 ( 2 ∗ 6) 3 𝑃
𝜎= = 3 = 4 =
𝐼 𝑏ℎ 6 12
12 12

Where: σ is flexural stress in psi; P is the applied load in lb; l is the distance distance

from the support to the nearest applied load in inches; and h and b are the cross section

dimension in inches.

The data represented in figure 4-6 shows that all three fibers increased the pre-cracking

flexural strength. However, each one enhanced it with a different trend. Hooked-end steel

fiber raised the flexural strength from 442 psi to 710 psi. In addition to increasing flexural

strength, crimped- steel fiber increased the pre-cracking deflection. In other words,

crimped fiber can increase the energy absorbed up to the first crack initiation. This

feature was more obvious in polypropylene fiber when it shifted the first cracks initiation

up to 0.064 inches in some of the tested specimens.

64
 Plain concrete Hooked end steel fiber
600 800
700
500
600

Stress (psi)
400
Stress (psi)

500
300 400
300
200
200
100 100
0 0
-0.01 0.04 0.09 0.14 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Deflection (in) Deflection (in)

Crimped steel fiber Crimped Polyprpylene Fiber

700 1000
600 800
500
Stress (psi)

Stress (psi)

400 600
300 400
200
100 200
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Deflection (in) Deflection (in)

Figure 4-6 Flexural Stress Versus Deflection at midspan

It can be seen from figure 4-6 that the flexural strength of the specimens increased

linearly up to the rapture point where strength drops rapidly or gradually, which will be

explain in more detail in the section on toughness. Table 4-4 shows the maximum

flexural stresses of each specimen σf, deflection at that stress δf,, and flexural strength at

the end of the test.

65
Table 4-4 Flexural test results

*For Novomesh 850, and Novomesh 950, only crimped steel fiber and crimped
Max Stress Stress
Speci Deflection at
flexura at at the Beams
Beam men Fiber type Max stress
l stress 0.06in test end
No. in (inches)
Description
σf (psi) (psi) (psi)

1 No fiber 477 0.031 0 0 Min shear

B1-MS 2 No fiber 453 0.035 0 0 reinforcement

Novocon
1 732 0.019 532 260
1050 Hooked-end

B2-HS Novocon steel

2 742 0.0198 329 164
1050

Novomesh
1 619 0.042 569 386
850*

Novomesh
2 647 0.044 566 356 Crimped-steel
B3-CS 850*

Novomesh
3 657 0.051 439 298
850*

Novomesh
1 848 0.052 258 304
950*

Novomesh Crimped
2 908 0.064 - 465
B4-PP 950* polypropylene
Novomesh
3 911 0.066 - 499
950*

monofilament polypropylene fiber were used respectively.

66
 ACI Code Requirements to Use Steel Fiber as Shear Reinforcement

ACI 318 in section 5.6.6.2 specified three conditions to accept steel fiber shear

reinforcement. The weight of deformed steel fiber should not be less than 100 lb per

cubic yard (3.7 lb/cubic ft). This requirement was satisfied since the amount that was

used was about 5.0 lb/cubic ft. The other two conditions were that the residual

strength at deflection l/300 and l/150 (0.06 inches and 0.12 inches) of the span length

is greater than 90% and 75% of the first peak strength, respectively. From the result

shown in the table, it can be seen that neither the hooked-end steel fiber nor the

crimped-steel fiber could pass these criteria. Polypropylene fiber shifted the first peak

beyond the deflection of l/300 of the span length. Therefore, this criteria criterion

could not be applied to it. Nevertheless, polypropylene strength at deflection l/150 of

the span length was less than 75% at first peak strength.

67
 4.2.4. Flexural Toughness

As mentioned in the second chapter, toughness is the absorbed energy prior to the

specimen separation, which is measured using toughness index. These indexes are I5,

which is the ratio of the area under load-deflection curve at 3 times first-crack deflection

to area under load-deflection curve at first crack, I10, measured at 5.5 times the first-

crack, and I30, measured at 15.5 times the first-crack deflection.

ASTM C1018 [18] is the specification that was used to determine the fiber reinforced

concrete toughness. This standard was withdrawn in the 2007 publication because of lack

of interest. This specification has the same testing procedure as described in ASTM

C1609 [48]. Therefore, similar to the flexural strength test for each type of fiber, three

beam specimens measuring 6” x 6” x 20” were sampled using the ASTM C172. The

specimens were cured for twenty-eight days. The test was stopped at a deflection equal to

5.5 times the deflection at the first crack occurrence.

The first graph in figure 4-7 shows the load-deflection curve for the plain concrete. It can

be seen that beam did not have any toughness. Thus, the toughness is zero. This result

was expected since it is known that concrete is brittle material.

The second graph is the hooked-end steel fiber results. After reaching the maximum

flexural strength, the section started cracking. However, unlike the plain concrete beam

specimens, the steel fiber held the section allowing load transfer across the cracks. The

post-cracking behavior of a specimen depends on number of factors such as volumetric

ratio, aspect ratio, and fiber type. In this case, the post-cracking flexural strength showed

68
a short hardening before it started decreasing gradually as the applied load increased

giving the specimen good toughness behavior. The gradual decreasing in the flexural

strength was caused by the bond failure of the steel fiber-concrete. This toughness is

explained in the Form of Toughness Index in table 4-5.

The third graph in figure 4-7 belongs to the crimped-steel fibers. These types of fibers

have less aspect ratio than the one discussed earlier. Despite the fact that the area under

the load-deflection curve for the post-cracking phase at three times the cracking load of

this fiber was greater than the previous fiber, the obtained toughness was still lower than

hooked-end steel fiber. This result can be explained by the fact this fiber increased both

areas for pre-cracking and post-cracking. In addition, it has a lower aspect ratio, which

can cause an earlier bond failure.

The last type of fiber was the crimped-monofilament polypropylene fiber, which is

shown in the fourth graph. It was mentioned in the previous section that this type of fiber

had a good effect on the pre-cracking flexural strength. Nevertheless, once the section

cracked there was a significant drop that sometimes exceeded 50% of the pre-cracking

strength. Therefore, the toughness of this type of fiber was lower than the other two.

69
 Plain concrete Hookked end steel fiber
7 10
6
8
5

Load (kip)
6
4
Load (kip)

3 4
2
2
1
0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Deflection (in) Deflection (in)

Crimped steel fiber Crimped Monofilment

9 Polypropylene fiber
8
14
7
6 12
10
Load (kip)

5
Load (kip)

4 8
3 6
2 4
1 2
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Deflection (in) Deflection (in)

Figure 4-7 Flexural toughness of concrete prism ( The dashed lines represent the tested
specimens and the solid line is the average of these specimen)

70
Table 4-5 Flexural toughness index of fiber reinforced concrete

Area under load Area under load-deflection 𝑰𝟓

Fiber Type deflection curve up to curve at 3 times the 𝑨𝟐
=
the first Crack (A1) cracking deflection (A2) 𝑨𝟏

Plain Concrete 0.08 0 0

Hooked end steel 0.085 0.27 3.17

Crimped steel
0.2 0.315 2.7
fiber

Crimped
0.48 0.488 1.02
polypropylene

Figure 4-7 shows the flexural toughness index at three times the cracking deflection. The

flexural toughness was summarized in figure 4-8. It can be concluded that hooked-end

steel fiber can increase both stiffness and the toughness. This was the same result

obtained by other researchers like Thomas and Ramaswamy [16]. Crimped-steel fiber

significantly increased pre-cracking flexural strength and toughness. However,

monofilament polypropylene fiber had a greater effect on the pre-cracking flexural

strength. In addition, it had a lower toughness increment in comparison with steel fiber.

Finally, figure 4-10 shows the areas used in the determination of flexural toughness

index.

71
 FLEXURAL TOUGHNESS
Plain concret Hooked end steel fiber
Crimped steel fiber Crimped Polypropylene Fiber
10

8
LOAD (KIP)

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
DEFLECTION (IN)

Figure 4-8 Comparison of the average flexural toughness index for the three used fiber .

Figure 4-9 Failure stages of plain concrete

72
Figure 4-10 Areas used to determine flexural toughness index

73
 4.3. Beams’ Behavior and Discussion

4.3.1. Beam Without Any Shear Reinforcement (B5-NS)

This beam had only two #5 rebars located at 0.75 inches from the bottom face. Its

compressive strength was estimated in section 4.2.1 to be 6711 psi. Therefore, its

maximum theatrical shear capacity, which was determined in chapter 3, can be revised

based on equation 11-3 or 11-5 in the ACI 318-08 [41]

𝑉𝑢 𝑑 𝑑
𝑉𝑐 = (1.9𝜆√𝑓′𝑐 + 2500𝜌𝑤 ) 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 = (1.9𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 + 2500𝜌𝑤 )𝑏𝑤 𝑑
𝑀𝑢 𝑎

Vc = 4499 lb

Q = 2 Vc = 8997 lb ~ 9.0 kips

𝑉𝑐 = 2𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏. 𝑑 = 2√6711 (4.5)(5.8) = 4.28 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

:. Q =2Vc = 8.55 kips

Beam (B5-NS)
16
14
12
Load Q (kips)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Deflection (in)

Figure 4-11 Experimental load versus deflection

74
If the ultimate strength estimated by ACI 318 is compared with one determine in the test,

it can be seen the measured strength was about 40% higher than predicted by ACI Code.

This result was expected since ACI equation was derived based on a very large number

of test results. Moreover, the beam contained a high amount of flexural steel, thus adding

to the dowel action capacity.

This type of beam has a brittle failure. Therefore, the ductility after the ultimate load is

zero.

𝑄/2 7
Stiffness at service load = 𝑘 = = = 46.7 𝑘/𝑖𝑛
𝛿 0.15

Stiffness at ultimate load = 14/0.27 = 52.2

If the beam stiffness at the service load (estimated as about 50% of the ultimate load),

which is 46.7, is compared with one at the ultimate load, which is 52.2 k/in, it can be

concluded that the beam has nearly a linear behavior until ultimate load.

Figure 4-12 shows cracks propagation and widths, which were checked at every 1 kip

load. First flexural cracks developed at the bottom fiber below the two point-loads. First

cracks were developed at 6 kips with a width less than 0.004 in (0.1mm). As the load was

increased, more cracks developed extending away from the middle third reign, the reign

of the pure flexural stress. These cracks are known as flexural-shear cracks. However, the

dominant shear cracks were developed at 14 kips. At this stage, the beam could not

sustain the load and load dropped to 12 kips. A little incremental increase in the load led

to a brittle failure. The failure was created by diagonal tension.

75
Figure 4-12 Cracks pattern and beam failure

76
 4.3.2. Beam Reinforced with Minimum Shear Steel Reinforcement (B1-MS)

Figure 4-13 shows load versus deflection for this beam specimen. It can be inferred that

reinforcement increases both shear strength and ductility by transferring the load across

the cracks. The shear strength estimated in section 3.3 was revised based on the average

compressive strength presented in section 4.2.1. However, when shear strength was

provided by a reinforcement placed at d/2, minimum shear reinforcement was not

affected.

𝑉𝑢 𝑑 𝑑
𝑉𝑐 = (1.9𝜆√𝑓′𝑐 + 2500𝜌𝑤 ) 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 = (1.9𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 + 2500𝜌𝑤 )𝑏𝑤 𝑑
𝑀𝑢 𝑎

Vc = 4682 lb = 4.4 kips

Vs = 2.1 kips

Vu = Vn = 4.6+2.1 = 6.7 kips

Q = 2(6.7) = 13.4 kips

Minimum Shear reinforcement (B1-TD)

18
16
14
Load Q (kip)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Deflection (in)

Figure 4-13 Load versus deflection for minimum shear reinforcement beam

77
From figure 4-13 it can be seen that as the load increased, the beam’s deflection was

increasing. This deflection followed a linear behavior until the ultimate load was reached,

at which point the beam stiffness was determined. After reaching the ultimate load, the

beam strength started decreasing gradually giving a good ductility for the beam. This

ductility was provided by shear reinforcement. The ductility of the beam was determined

after dropping the beam strength to the service limit, which is estimated as about 50% of

the ultimate strength.

𝑄/2 8.13
Stiffness at service load = 𝑘 = = = 38.7 𝑘/𝑖𝑛
𝛿 0.21

4.71
Ductility = 𝜇 = = 1.61
2.93

Ductility is the ratio of the absorbed energy by the plastic deformation when load

dropped to the service limit to the energy absorbed under elastic deformation. In other

words, it the ratio of area under load deflection curve when load dropped from peak value

to the service limit to the area when load increased from zero the peak value.

The nominal strength of each system was determined in terms of √𝑓′𝑐. This nominal

shear strength was referred to as Vc for the purpose of comparsion with specimen that did

not have any shear reinforcement.

16.6 √7332
𝑉𝐶 = 𝑥 √𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑 → =𝑥 (4.5)(5.8)
2 1000

X = 3.71

:. 𝑉𝐶 = 3.71√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑

78
Figure 4-14 shows the cracks pattern. Flexural cracks were initiated under 3 kips at the

bottom face. The width of the cracks at this stage was less than 0.1mm. The width of the

cracks increased to 0.1 mm under 6 kips. At 9 kips, more cracks were initiated. However,

old cracks preserved their width. Shear cracks of 0.004 in (0.1 mm) width were

developed under 12 kips. As the load increased to 15 kips, shear cracks widened to 0.013

in (0.33 mm). Nevertheless, flexural cracks stopped propagating at this stage. Shear crack

width at the ultimate load was 0.05 in (1.25mm). After this stage, the shear cracks started

widening as the load was increased until diagonal tensile failure occurred.

79
 B1-MS
B1-MS
3 kips
1 kip

B1-MS
B1-MS 15 kips
12 kips

B1-MS
17 kips B1-MS

Figure 4-14 Cracks propagation and failure pattern for minimum shear reinforcement specimen

80
 4.3.3. Beam Reinforced with Hooked-End Steel Fiber (B2-HS)

Similar to the other two specimens, using a 1% volumetric ratio of hooked-end steel fiber

did not change the linear behavior of stiffness up to peak strength. However, when this

beam reached the ultimate strength, its strength did not drop like the control specimens.

The hooked-end steel fiber bridged the cracks and transferred the stress along them.

Therefore, the specimen sustained the applied load, but its strength started dropping when

the concrete on the top surface started to crush.Figure 4-15 shows that hooked-end steel

fiber provided a very good ductility for this system. In other words, as the deflection was

increasing, the beam sustained the same ultimate load. After this stage, the load started

decreasing gradually.

𝑄/2 11.3
Stiffness at service load = 𝑘 = = = 45.2 𝑘/𝑖𝑛
𝛿 0.25

𝑄/2 23.4
Stiffness at ultimate load = 𝑘 = = = 41.1 𝑘/𝑖𝑛
𝛿 0.57

10.24
Ductility was determined using same method in section 4.3.2 = 𝜇 = = 2.0
5.15

Hooked end steel fiber (B2 -HS)

30
25
Load Q (kip))

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Deflection (in)

Figure 4-15 Load Vs deflection for hooked end steel fiber

81
The ultimate strength was estimated based on Parra-Montesinos (2006) and ACI 318-11,

and was revised by using actual compressive strength of the beam.

𝑉𝐶 = 3.5√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑 → 𝑉𝑐 = 3.5√6495 (4.5)(5.8)

Vc = 7362 lb = 7.4 kips

Q = 2Vc = 2(7.4) = 14.8 kips

It can be seen that the estimated strength is much lower than one determined in the test.

Therefore, based on the test result the shear strength of can be estimated with respect

to√𝑓′𝑐

24.0 √6495
𝑉𝐶 = 𝑥√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑 → =𝑥 (4.5)(5.8)
2 1000

:. X = 5.7

𝑉𝐶 = 5.7√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑

Flexural cracks with a width less than 0.004 in (0.1 mm) first developed at 5 kips. As the

load was increased, more cracks developed out of the middle third of the beam. Flexural

shear cracks were developed at 7 kips. At 9 kips, the biggest crack width was 0.008 in

(0.2 mm). The first shear crack was initiated at 16 kips. At this level, the biggest crack

width was 0.016 in (0.4 mm). It can be seen from figure 4-16 that this beam developed a

greater number of cracks than the control specimens. This result reflects a good

redistribution of the stresses. When the load was increased, the cracks widened. However,

it was bridged by fibers. The maximum crack width at the ultimate load, which was 24
82
kips, was 0.07 in (1.8 mm). Compression failure occurred by crushing the concrete in the

middle third of the top face.

Figure 4-16 Cracks propagation and failure pattern for hooked end steel fiber

83
 4.3.1. Beam Reinforced with Crimped-Steel Fiber (B3-CS)

Similar to the previous beam, using a 1% of crimped-steel fiber increased the shear

strength of the beam. It can be seen from figure 4-17 that the shear strength increased

linearly up to the ultimate strength, at which point the curve started flatting. In other

words, at the ultimate load, the beam stiffness dropped due to the amount of the cracks

that developed.

AIt can be seen that fiber significantly enhanced the ductility of the concrete beam. Bond

failure between fibers and concrete was observed due to increasing the load beyond the

ultimate strength. At this level, beam strength started dropping due to a shear failure

followed by a compression failure.

Crimped steel fiber (B3-CS)

25

20
Load Q (kip)

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Defection (in)

Figure 4-17 Load vs deflection for crimped steel fiber

84
 𝑄/2 11.5
Stiffness at service load = 𝑘 = = = 64.7 𝑘/𝑖𝑛
𝛿 0.17

𝑄 22.9
Stiffness at ultimate load = 𝑘 = = = 40.2 𝑘/𝑖𝑛
𝛿 0.57

8.87
Ductility to a point when strength dropped to the service load = 𝜇 = = 2.0
4.4

The estimated shear strength based on the actual compressive strength is

𝑉𝐶 = 3.5√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑 → 𝑉𝑐 = 3.5√5758 (4.5)(5.8)

Vc = 6931 lb = 6.9 kips

2P = 2Vc = 2(6.9) = 13.9 kips < less than actual strength determined in the test

Therefore the actual strength can be determine with respect to √𝑓′𝑐

23.6 √5758
𝑉𝐶 = 𝑥√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑 → =𝑥 (4.5)(5.8)
2 1000

:. X = 6.0

𝑉𝐶 = 6.0√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑

Visible flexural cracks with a width less than 0.1mm were initiated at the middle third of

the beam at 6 kips. The cracks’ width was not effected when the applied load was

increased to 9 kips. However, a few other cracks formed, which refers to a good stress

redistribution. At 12 kips some of the cracks widened to 0.004 in (0.1 mm). The first

shear crack with a width less than 0.004 in (0.1mm) was initiated at 15 kips. At this stage,

some of the flexural cracks widened to 0.008 in (0.2mm). Crimped-steel fiber prevented

85
the cracks from propagating, and transferred the load across them. When the applied load

reached 22 kips, cracks were initiated and some of the old ones widened. As the load

was increased, most of the fibers had a bond failure or fracture failure. At this stage, the

maximum crack width was 0.028 in (0.7mm). As shown in figure 4-18, after the

maximum crack was reached, the beam strength decreased gradually as the load was

increased. Due to shear failure that was later companied by compression failure, a brittle

failure occurred.

15 kips

15 kips

7 kips 5 kips

(failure (failure

Figure 4-18 Cracks propagation and failure pattern for crimped steel fiber

86
 4.3.2. Beam Reinforced with Monofilament-Crimped Polypropylene Fiber

(B4-CPP)

Figure 4-19 shows the load versus deflection for the crimped-monofilament

polypropylene fiber. The stiffness of this beam increased linearly up to the ultimate

strength when a brittle shear failure occurred. In comparison with the other control

specimens, polypropylene fiber boosted the beam strength by bridging micro cracks.

Nevertheless, when the stress was increased and cracks began to propagate, most of the

fibers fractured causing beam failure.

Crimp Monofilfment Polypropylene fiber (B4-

CPP)
30

25
Load Q (kip)

20

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Deflection (in)

Figure 4-19 Load vs deflection for crimped monofilament polypropylene fiber

𝑄/2 11.4
Stiffness at service load = 𝑘 = = = 57 𝑘/𝑖𝑛
𝛿 0.2

𝑉𝐶 = 3.5√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑 → 𝑉𝑐 = 3.5√6914 (4.5)(5.8)

87
Vc =7596 lb = 7.6 kips

Q = 2Vc = 2(7.6) = 15.2 kips

Based on earlier research [42] and ACI 318-11 tests, it can be seen that the estimated

strength was less than the strength determined in this test. Therefore, shear strength can

be determined as a function of √𝑓′𝑐

22.8 √6914
𝑉𝐶 = 𝑥√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑 → =𝑥 (4.5)(5.8)
2 1000

:. X = 5.25

𝑉𝐶 = 5.25√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 . 𝑑

Similar to the previous beam, flexural cracks were first initiated at a load of 6 kips. At a

load of 8 kips, additional two cracks were initiated. The maximum crack width at this

stage was less than 0.1mm. while few other cracks developed at 11kips. The overall

amount of cracks was less than the beam specimen reinforced with steel fiber. Therefore,

it can be concluded that polypropylene inhibited micro-crack propagation. As the load

increased, cracks propagated and the polypropylene fibers fractured. Shear cracks

developed at 13.5 kips with a width of 0.1mm. At 16.4 kips, shear cracks width was

0.2mm. As the load was increased, the cracks widened. In addition, few other cracks

developed. The maximum crack width at 22.2 kips, which was close to the failure load,

was 1.6mm. After this stage, a brittle shear failure developed and the beam strength

dropped to almost zero as shown in figure 4-20.

88
 0 6 kips

8 13.5

16.4 20.2

kips

22.2 22.6 kips

Figure 4-20 Cracks propagation and failure pattern for monofilament crimped polypropylene fiber

89
 4.4. Summary of the Beams Tests

4.4.1. Ultimate Shear Stress and Normalize Shear Stress

The ultimate shear strength of the beam specimens, vu, was determined from the peak

applied load, Q/2¸ shear span, a, and the beam cross section. The table shows the

normalize shear-stress for each of the beam specimens.

𝑄
𝑣𝑢 =
2𝑏. 𝑑

Figure 4-21 Shear forces in the tested beams

90
Table 4-6 Normalized ultimate shear stress in term of √𝑓′𝑐

Beams Q/2 vu 𝒗𝒖
Beam Failure mode
√𝒇′𝒄 Ductility
description (kips) (psi)

(No Shear
B5-NS 7.0 287 3.5 0 Diagonal tension
Reinforcement)

B1- MS (Min Steel) 8.3 318 3.7 1.61 Diagonal tension

Compression
B2-HS (Hooked Steel) 11.8 452 5.7 2.0
failure

Compression-
B3-CS (Crimpled Steel) 11.9 455 6.0 2.0
shear failure

CPP(crimped
B4-CPP 11.4 437 5.25 0 Diagonal tension
Polypropylene)

It can be seen from table 4-6 that minimum normalized shear-stress for the fiber

reinforced concrete beam is 5.25√𝑓′𝑐 . This value is greater than the normalized value

for the beam specimen reinforced with minimum shear reinforcement. In addition, it is

more than the value estimated in ACI 318, 3.5√𝑓′𝑐.

91
In order to compare shear strength and the behavior of fiber reinforced concrete beams,

the beam reinforced with minimum shear reinforcement was used as a base line for

normalizing the strength of other specimens. Table 4-7 shows the normalized ultimate

shear strength for the beam specimens.

Table 4-7 Normalized shear strength of the beams to the one with minimum shear reinforcement

Q/2 Shear strength normalize to min.

Beam Beams description
(kips) shear reinforced beam (B1-MS)

(No Shear
B5-NS 7.0 0.84
Reinforcement)

B1- MS (Min Steel) 8.3 1.0

B2-HS (Hooked Steel) 12 1.46

B3-CS (Crimpled Steel) 11.8 1.42

(crimped
B4-Cpp 11.4 1.37
Polypropylene)

92
 4.4.2. Crack Width, Pattern and Failure Mode

From test results, it was observed that all of the beams developed a number of cracks.

However, the amount that was developed in the fiber-reinforced specimens, especially for

steel fiber specimens, was more than other specimens. This phenomenon indicates a

better behavior in stress redistribution.

A maximum crack width of 0.071 in (1.8mm) was observed in the beam specimen

reinforced with hooked-end steel fiber. For crimped-steel fiber, the maximum crack

width was 0.028in(0.7mm). The polypropylene fiber specimen developed a wider crack

with a width of 0.063 in (1.6mm). For the control specimen with minimum shear

reinforcement and plain concrete, cracks of 0.049 in(1.25mm) and 0.004 in (0.1 mm)

respectively were observed. Regarding cracks, the previous results showed that fiber

reinforced concrete specimens can provide behavior similar to, if not better than, a beam

with minimum shear reinforcement.

Table 4-6 lists three types of failure. The first type of failure is diagonal tension, which

was observed in the control specimen and specimen reinforced with polypropylene fiber.

In this type of failure, a diagonal tension crack developed that widened and led to failure.

The second type of failure was compression failure, which occurred at the top

compression fiber of concrete in the middle third of the beam. This type of failure was

observed in the beam reinforced with hooked-end steel fiber. The last type of failure was

started by the bond failure between the concrete and the fiber in the diagonal crack that

was followed by crushing of the concrete at the top fiber. This failure was obtained in the

beam specimen reinforced with crimped-steel fiber.

93
 4.4.3. Prediction of Shear Strength Based on Previous Research.

As described in section 2.4, a number of researchers have proposed expressions to predict

the shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams. These expressions are used in

this section to compute shear strength values, and to compare them with measured shear

strength to find the closest estimation. It is should be noted that these expressions were

derived for steel fibers. However, when it was used for the polypropylene fiber, it gave a

very close estimation.

Table 4-8 Prediction shear strength of SFC

Shear
Shear Shear
Shear strength
Shear strength Variation
strength strength
based on
strength based on from the
Beam based on based on
from the Narayanan closest
Sharma Al-Ta’an Khuntia,
test (psi) & Darwish estimation
(psi) (psi)
(psi)
(psi)

B2-
452 287 311 320 253 29 %
HS

B3-
455 266 284 292 175 36 %
CS

B4-
437 280 336 359 238 17%
CPP

94
 4.4.4. Replacement of Minimum Shear Reinforcement

Results presented in table 4-6 show that the normalized ultimate shear-stress for the fiber

reinforced concrete was more than the one reinforced with steel reinforcement. In

addition, Figure 4-22 shows that the beam specimen reinforced with steel fiber exhibited

ductility better than the control specimen. Therefore, both types of steel fiber appear to

have the potential to replace traditional reinforcement for minimum shear reinforcement.

LOAD VS DEFLECTION
B1-MS (control) B2-HS (hooked steel fiber)
B3-CS ( crimp steel fiber) C4-Cpp (crimped Polypropylene fiber)
B5-NS (No shear reinforcement )
30

25

20
Load (kip)

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Deflection (in)

Figure 4-22 comparison load versus deflection for the tested beam specimens.

95
In order to compare the effect of fibers on the shear strength, all load-deflection

relationships for specimens were normalized to the one reinforced with minimum shear

reinforcement as shown in figure 4-23.

NORMALIZED LOAD VS DEFLECTION

B1-MS B2-HS B3-CS B4-CPP B5-NS

1.6
1.4
NORMALIZED SHEAR

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
DEFLECTION (IN)

Figure 4-23 Normalized Shear strength

96
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research

5.1. Summary

The experimental program consisted of five approximately one-third scale beam

specimens. Three specimens were reinforced with hooked-end steel, crimped-steel and

crimped-monofilament polypropylene fibers. The other two were control beam

specimens. One was reinforced with steel wire stirrups placed at maximum spacing

specified by ACI 318. The other control beam did not have any shear reinforcement.

These beams had a moderate slenderness ratio of effective shear span-to-depth ratio of

3.6. The concrete compressive strength varied from 5758 psi to 7332 psi. In order to

avoid flexural failure and ensure a shear failure, a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of

2.42% was selected. In addition to the beam specimens, twelve prisms measuring 6” x 6”

x 18” were made to determine flexural strength and flexural toughness of each type of

fiber. The effect of fibers on the compressive strength of concrete were determined by

testing standard 6”x12” cylinders. The effect of fibers on the tensile strength of concrete

were determined by testing eight cylinders, 6” x 12”, using the splitting tensile test.

The aim of this research was to compare the effect of the fiber on the compressive

strength, tensile strength, crack pattern, flexural strength, and the flexural toughness of

FRC. Moreover, the effect of the type of fiber on the shear strength was studied. Finally,

this research investigated the possibility replacing minimum shear reinforcement

specified by ACI 318 by a 1% volumetric amount of fiber.

97
The fibers used were manufactured by Propex, namely by Novomesh 850, Novomesh

950 and Novocon 1050. It should be noted that for Novomesh 850, and Novomesh 950

fibrillated polypropylene fiber was not investigated for the purpose of consistency in this

research. In the other, only crimped-steel and crimped-polypropylene were investigated.

The aspect ratio of the fiber was 34 for the crimped-steel, 55 for the crimped-

polypropylene, and 55 for the hooked-end steel fiber. The volumetric ratio was 1% for

the three fibers.

5.2. Conclusions

1- Using 1% of the crimped-polypropylene fiber increased the pre-cracking flexural

strength by bridging the micro-cracks. However, this effect diminished in the

case of crimped-steel fiber and vanished for hooked-end steel fiber.

2- Using a 1% volumetric ratio of the hooked-end steel fiber greatly enhanced the

post-cracking characteristics or flexural toughness. This effect was slightly

decreased when crimped-steel fiber used. However, in the case of crimped-

polypropylene fiber, flexural toughness was greatly decreased.

3- For the beam specimens, all three types of fibers increased the number of cracks,

especially in case of the steel fibers. Beams reinforced with steel fibers developed

more cracks than the controls beams, which points to a better stress redistribution.

In addition, hooked-end steel fiber shifted the failure mode from diagonal

tension, which was observed in the control specimens and the beam reinforced

with crimped polypropylene fiber, to compression failure and pure flexural

98
 failure. The mode of failure in case of crimped-steel fiber was a combination of

compression failure and shear failure.

4- The results showed that the three types of the fibers could increase the shear

strength of the beams more than the one reinforced with traditional shear

reinforcement based on minimum reinforcement specified in the ACI 318. All

three types of the fiber showed an increase in the shear strength up to 5.0√𝑓′𝑐 .

5- Both types of steel fibers enhanced the ductility of the beam beyond the ductility

of the beam with minimum shear reinforcement. Therefore, it is observed that a

1% volumetric ratio of steel fiber is able to replace minimum traditional shear

reinforcement.

5.3. Recommendations for Further Research

Fiber industry is a developing industryand a variety of types of fiberare being

introduced such as arched-hooked end steel fibers. These newer types of fiber should be

investigated. Another promising field of study is using hybrid fibers. Hybrid fiber can be

obtained by mixing fibers made of different materials such as mixing steel fiber with

polypropylene fiber to enhance both fresh and hardened concrete characteristics. Another

form of hybrid fiber is mixing fibers of different size or shape.

99
 References

[1] ACI 544, "Design Concsiderations for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete," ACU

Jornl Proceedings, vol. 1, no. 2003, pp. 1-23, 2003.

[2] E. Nawy, Fundmentals of High-performance Concrete 2nd ed., New York: John

Wiley& Sons, 2001.

[3] A. E. Naaman and H. Najm, "Bond-Slip Mechanisms of Steel Fibers in Concrete

Beam," ACI Materials Journal, vol. 2, no. 88, pp. 135-145, 1991.

[4] N. Banthia and J. F. Trottier, "Concrete Reinforced with Deforemed Steel Fibers,

Part I: Bond -Slip Mechanisms," ACI Mterials Journal, vol. 5, no. 91, pp. 435-446,

1994.

[5] D. J. Hannant, "Fiber Cements and Fiber Concretes," John Wily and Sons Ltd,

1978.

[6] H. H. Dinh, "SHEAR BEHAVIOR OF STEEL FIBER REINFORCED

COCNRETE BEAMS WITOUT STIRUP REINFORCEMENT," Doctoral

Disssertation, pp. 1-277, 2009.

[7] A. E. Naaman and H. W. Reinhardt, "Characterization of High Performance," in

Proceedings of the Second International Workshop ' High Performance Fiber

Reinforced Cement Composites, Ann Arbor, USA , 1995.

100
[8] Z. P. Bazant, "Concrete fracture models: testing and practice," Engineering fracture

mechanics, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 165-205, 2002.

[9] S. Shah and B. V. Rangan, "Fiber Reinforced Concrete Properties," ACI Journal

Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 68, pp. 126-135, 1971.

[10] K. Noghabai, "Beams of Fibours Concrete in Shear and Bending: Experment and

Model," ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering , vol. 2, no. 126, pp. 243-251,

2000.

[11] D. Denneman, E. Kearsley and A. Visser, "Spliting tensile test of fiber reinforced

cocnrete".

[12] J. Oleson, L. Ostergaared and H. Stang, "Nonlinear frccture mechancis and Plsticity

of split tensile test," Material and Structures 39, pp. 421-432, 2006.

[13] T. Tang, "Effect of load-distribution width on splitting tesnsion unnotched and

cotched cylincderical specimens," Journal of Testing anf Evaluation , no. 22, pp.

401-409, 1994.

[14] C. Recco , G. Guinea, J. Planas and M. Elices, "Size effect and boundary cocndition

in the Brazilian test : Therotical verfication," Material and Structures , no. 32, pp.

210-217, 1999.

101
[15] P. S. Song and Hwang , "Mechanicl properties of high-strength steel fiber

rienforced cocnrete," Construction and Building Materials , vol. 0, no. 18, pp. 669-

673, 2004.

[16] J. Thomas and A. Ramaswmy, "Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber Reinforced

Concrete," ASCE Journal of Materils in Civil Engineering , vol. 5, no. 19, pp. 385-

392, 2007.

[17] C. D. Johnston, "Properties of Steel Fiber Reinforced Mortar and Concrete," in

Interntional Symposium on Fibrous Concrete , Lancaster, 1980.

[18] ASTM. C1018, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced

Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading), West Conshohocken: ASTM

International , 2006.

[19] ACI. 544.4R, Design Considerations for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete,

Farmington Hills, Michigan: ACI, 2009.

[20] v. Ramakarish , T. Brandshaug, W. V. Coy and E. K. Schrder, "Comparative

Evaluation of Concrete Reinforced with Straight Steel Fibers and Fibers with

Deforemed Ends Glued Together into Bundles," ACI Journal , vol. 3, no. 77, pp.

135-143, 1980.

102
[21] P. Sorounshian and Z. Bayasi, "Fiber Type Effects on the Performance of Steel

Fiber Reinforced Concrete," ACI Materials Journal , vol. 2, no. 88, pp. 129-134,

1991.

[22] A. R. Khaloo and N. Kim, "Mechanical Properties of Normal to High-Strength

Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete," Concrete and Aggregates, vol. 2, no. 18, pp. 92-

97, 1996.

[23] S. Ahmed, I. A. Bukhari, J. I. Siddiqui and S. A. Qureshi, "A STUDY ON

PROPERTIES OF POLYPROPYLENE FIBER REINFORCED COCNRETE,"

2006.

[24] R. Zollo, "Collated Fibrillated Polypropylene Fibers in FRC," American Concrete

Institute , no. 81, pp. 397-409, 1984.

[25] V. Ramakrish, S. Gollapudi and R. Zellers, "Performance Characteristics and

Fatigue of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete," American Concrete Institute

, pp. 159-177, 1987.

[26] V. Ramakrish , G. Y. Wu and G. Hosalli, "Flexural Fatigue Strength Endurance

Limit and Impact Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete," Transportation Reserch

Record 1226, pp. 17-24, 1989.

103
[27] M. Grzybowski and S. P. Shah, "Restrained Shrinkge Test with PP-Fiber

Reinforced Concrete," Fiber Reinforced Concrete Properties and Applications, pp.

141-158, 1987.

[28] R. F. Zollo, J. A. IIter and G. B. Bouchaacourt, "Plastic and Drying Shrinkage in

Concrete Contining Fibrillted Polypropylene Fiber," in Therid Unternational

Symposium on Development in Fiber Reinforced Cement and Concrete , 1986.

[29] P. Vinu, R. Ankur and I. P. I, "Shear Strength of polypropylene fiber reinforced

cocnrete moderate deep beams without stirrups," Journal of Structural Engineering

, vol. 5, no. 37, pp. 364-368, 2010.

[30] E. Nawy, REINFORED CONCRETE FUNDMENTAL APPROACH, New Jersey:

Pearson Education, 2009.

[31] Richart, An Investigstion of Web Stresses in Reinforced Concrete Mebers,

University of Illinois Experment Station , 1927.

[32] O. Moretto, "An Investigtion of the Strength of Welded Strirrups in REinforced

Concrete Beam," ACI Material Journal , vol. 11, no. 42, pp. 141-162, 1945.

[33] C. Cucchiara, L. Mendola and M. Papia, "Effectiveness of stirrups and steel fibers

as shear reinforcement," Cement and Concrete Composite , 2002.

[34] K. Jain, "Steel fiber s minimum shear reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams,"

Magazine of Concrete Research , vol. 2, no. 18, pp. 92-97, 2013.

104
[35] A. K. Sharm, "Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI

Journal , pp. 624-628, 1986.

[36] R. Narayanan and I. Y. Darwish , "Use of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement,"

ACI Structural Journl, vol. 3, no. 84, pp. 216-227, 1987.

[37] J. P. Romualdi and G. B. Batson, "Mechnics of Crack Arrest in Concrete," ASCE

Journal of the Engineering Mechanics , pp. 147-168, 1963.

[38] R. N. Swamy and P. S. Mangat, "THeory for the Flexural Strength of Steel Fiber

Reinforced Concrete," Cement and Concrete Research , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 313-325,

1974.

[39] S. A. Al-Ta'an and J. R. Al-Feel, "Evaluation of Shear Strength of fiber-

Reainforcded Concrete Beams," Cement&Concrete Composites, vol. 5, no. 85, pp.

87-94, 1990.

[40] M. Khuntia, B. Stojadinovic and S. C. Goel, "Shear STrength of Normal and High-

strength Fiber REinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups," ACI STructural

Journl , vol. @, no. 18, pp. 282-289, 1999.

[41] ACI. C. 318, Building Code Requirments for Structural Concrete and Commentary,

Farmington Hills , 2008.

[42] G. J. Parra-Montesinos, "Shear Strength of Beams with Deformed Steel Fibers.,"

Concrete International, vol. 11, no. 28, pp. 57-66, 2006.

105
[43] ASTM. C172, Standard Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete., West

Conshohocken, PA.: ASTM International, 1999.

[44] ASTM. C39/C39M, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of, West

Conshohocken, PA.: ASTM, 2003.

[45] ASTM. C31/C31M, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test, West

Conshohocken, PA.: ASTM International, 2003.

[46] ASTM. C496, Standard Test Method For Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylinderical

Concrete Specimens, West Conshohocken: ASTM, 2007.

[47] A. Sivakumar and Manu Santhanam, "Mechanical properties of high strength

concrete reinforced with metallic and non-metallic fibres," Cement and Concrete

Composites, vol. 29, pp. 603-608., 2007.

[48] ASTM. C1609, Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-

Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading), Michigan : ASTM,

2007.

[49] ASTM. C1018, Standard Test Methods for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack

Strength of Fiber-Reiforced Concrete, West Conshohocken: ASTM, 1997.

[50] ASTM. 370, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of,

West Conshohocken, PA.: ASTM, 2003.

106